In re Solita Harrington

Summary

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of Solita Harrington’s motion for leave to file new claims related to prior medical procedures. The court held that Harrington failed to provide the certification required by an existing filing injunction and declined to dismiss the appeal as untimely because the appellee forfeited its timeliness objection by raising it too late. The court also denied the appellee’s request for Rule 38 sanctions.

Holdings

1. An appellee forfeits the right to dismissal under D.C. App. R. 4 when it fails to properly and promptly invoke the rule and instead raises the timeliness objection for the first time after briefing, calendaring, and submission of the appeal.
2. The Superior Court properly denied Harrington's motion for leave to file because the prefiling injunction made the specified certification mandatory and Harrington did not provide it.
3. The court declined to impose attorneys' fees, costs, or a preemptive injunction barring Harrington from proceeding in forma pauperis in future appeals.

Questions Presented

1. Whether MedStar forfeited its challenge to the timeliness of Harrington's notice of appeal by raising it for the first time in a supplemental brief after briefing and calendaring.
2. Whether the Superior Court properly denied Harrington's motion for leave to file new claims subject to the Jackson & Campbell prefiling injunction.
3. Whether Harrington's appeal warranted sanctions under D.C. App. R. 38, including attorneys' fees, costs, or a preemptive restriction on proceeding in forma pauperis in future appeals.

Disposition

affirmed