Summary
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals dismissed Danielle Pennington’s appeal as a sanction for submitting a forged federal court order in support of her claim to ownership of foreclosed property. The court held that Pennington’s deliberate deception and related filings constituted extreme litigation misconduct warranting dismissal under D.C. App. R. 38. The court also concluded that lesser sanctions would not adequately deter the misconduct.
Holdings
- The purported federal court order submitted by Pennington was plainly forged.
- Dismissal of an appeal may be warranted under D.C. App. R. 38 when a party willfully deceives the court and engages in conduct utterly inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice.
- No sanction other than dismissal would sufficiently deter Pennington's misconduct.
Questions Presented
- Whether Pennington submitted a forged federal court order to the Court of Appeals.
- Whether submitting the forged order and related litigation misconduct warranted dismissal of the appeal as a sanction under D.C. App. R. 38.
- Whether a sanction less severe than dismissal would adequately deter the misconduct.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (9)
- Christopher v. Aguigui, 841 A.2d 310, 311 n.2 (D.C. 2003)(followed)
- Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1283 (11th Cir. 2001)(followed)
- Slater v. Biehl, 793 A.2d 1268, 1278 n.12 (D.C. 2002)(followed)
- Breezevale Ltd. v. Dickinson, 879 A.2d 957, 967 (D.C. 2005)(followed)
- Synanon Found., Inc. v. Bernstein, 503 A.2d 1254, 1264 (D.C. 1986)(followed)
- District of Columbia v. Serafin, 617 A.2d 516, 519 (D.C. 1992)(followed)
- Perry v. Sera, 623 A.2d 1210, 1218 (D.C. 1993)(distinguished)
- Slate v. ABC, Inc., 941 F. Supp. 2d 27, 52 (D.D.C. 2013), aff'd, 584 F. App'x 2 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 18, 2014) (per curiam)(followed)
- In re Harrington, 283 A.3d 714, 720-21 (D.C. 2022)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…