Josephat Mua v. California Casualty Indemnity

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for leave to file [999743475-2], denying Motion for leave to file [999696536-2]; denying Motion to vacate [999696555-2]; denying Motion for abeyance (Local Rule 12(d)) [999670359-2] Originating case number: 8:14-cv-03810-PJM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999763824]. Mailed to: Josephat Mua, Francoise Vandenplas. [15-2048]

Appeal: 15-2048

Doc: 47

Filed: 02/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2048

JOSEPHAT MUA; FRANCOISE VANDENPLAS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
CALIFORNIA CASUALTY INDEMNITY EXCHANGE; MARSDEN & SELEDEE,
LLC,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:14-cv-03810-PJM)

Submitted:

February 25, 2016

Before SHEDD and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

February 29, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Josephat Mua, Francoise Vandenplas, Appellants Pro Se.
Thomas
V. McCarron, James Olin Spiker, IV, SEMMES, BOWEN & SEMMES,
Baltimore, Maryland; Joel D. Seledee, MARSDEN & SELEDEE, LLC,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2048

Doc: 47

Filed: 02/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Appellants, Josephat Mua and Francoise Vandenplas, appeal
the district court’s order:
claims

stemming

(“CCIE”)
failure

from

non-renewal
to

pay

participation

in

(1) dismissing with prejudice their

California
of

an

Casualty

automobile

benefits,

and

a

state

related

Indemnity
insurance

Marsden
court

&

Exchange’s
policy

Seledee,

action

seeking

and
LLC’s
the

recovery of money CCIE wrongfully paid Appellants for property
damage; and (2) dismissing without prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction Appellants’ claims for non-property damage
benefits payable under the insurance policy.

Appellants have

filed several motions with this court, including a motion to
place this appeal in abeyance pending resolution of the related
state court case, and a motion for leave to file a motion to
vacate the district court’s judgment.
Appellants’

failure

to

challenge

on

appeal

the

district

court’s dispositive holdings amounts to a waiver of appellate
review over those holdings.
will

limit

its

review

to

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The Court
the

issues

raised

in

the

informal

brief.”); United States v. Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th
Cir. 2004) (“It is a well settled rule that contentions not
raised

in

the

abandoned.”).

argument

section

of

the

opening

brief

are

To the extent Appellants seek to raise new claims

against Appellees, Appellants may not do so for the first time
2

Appeal: 15-2048

Doc: 47

on appeal.

Filed: 02/29/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

See Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d

403, 411 n.10 (4th Cir. 2010) (“We have previously made it clear
that the failure to present an argument to the district court
constitutes waiver before this court.”); Muth v. United States,
1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (noting that issues raised for
the first time on appeal are waived unless plain error or a
fundamental miscarriage of justice would result).

Because we

find no reversible error by the district court, we deny the
pending motions and affirm the district court’s judgment.

Mua

v. Cal. Cas. Indem. Exch., No. 8:14-cv-03810-PJM (D. Md. filed
Aug. 17, 2015, entered Aug. 19, 2015).

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3