203 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 1999), 99-7035, Jacobs v. Stoner
|Citation:||203 F.3d 52|
|Party Name:||Samuel JACOBS and Nancy Heckerman, Appellants, v. Robert E. STONER and Roberta L. Stoner, Appellees.|
|Case Date:||November 03, 1999|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTADC Rule 28 and FI CTADC Rule 36 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Before SILBERMAN, HENDERSON, and TATEL, Circuit Judges.
This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellants. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the district court's January 28, 1999, order granting appellees' motion to dismiss the complaint be affirmed. The district court lacked personal jurisdiction over appellees, who had no contacts with the District of Columbia sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the District of Columbia's long-arm statute, D.C.Code Ann. § 13-423. See Jungquist v. Sheik Sultan Bin Khalifa Al Nahyan, 115 F.3d 1020, 1030-33 (D.C.Cir.1997); United States v. Ferrara, 54 F.3d 825, 828 (D.C.Cir.1995). Even if the district court erred in failing to...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP