Brud Rossmann v. Terrence Austin

<p>United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 20-7050 September Term, 2020 1:20-cv-01117-UNA Filed On: October 30, 2020 Brud Rossmann, Esquire, Appellant v. Terrence Austin, Esquire, et al., Appellees ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: Henderson and Katsas, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit Judge JUDGMENT This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and appendix filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed June 1, 2020, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because the complaint neither established federal question nor diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332; see also Johnson v. Robinson, 576 F.3d 522, 522 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (“Federal court jurisdiction must affirmatively appear clearly and distinctly. The mere suggestion of a federal question is not sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of federal courts.”) (quoting Bilal v. Kaplan, 904 F.2d 14, 15 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam)). Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41. Per Curiam FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk 20-7050 Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit cadc D.C. Cir. Brud Rossmann v. Terrence Austin 30 October 2020 Unpublished 6f99715c0e6f8dbaea465289b87c1a25ec3cb1b8</p><br>
<a href="/opinion/4801937/brud-rossmann-v-terrence-austin/">Original document</a>
Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on, it is strongly advised to avoid Brud Rossmann v. Terrence Austin in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from Brud Rossmann v. Terrence Austin. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
Brud Rossmann v. Terrence Austin is rated 1 out of 5 based on the reviews submitted by our users and is marked as POOR.
Never trust websites which offer a shady ‘advocacy package’ to businesses. Search for relevant reviews on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer to see more unbiased reviews.