Jill Otis v. Veronica Bulaon, No. 22-1851 (7th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. APP. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted January 19, 2023* Decided January 23, 2023 Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge No. 22 1851 JILL OTIS, Plaintiff Appellant, v. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 21 CV 954 SCD VERONICA BULAON and ACC MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., Defendants Appellees. Stephen C. Dries, Magistrate Judge. O R D E R Jill Otis sued her apartment manager and property management company, asserting that they terminated her tenancy because of her race or disability. The district court entered summary judgment for defendants, finding—based on undisputed evidence—that the management company terminated Otis’s tenancy because she threatened to kill another tenant. * After examining the record, we have agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the appeal is frivolous. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(A). No. 22 1851 Page 2 On appeal, Otis has not developed any challenge to the district court’s reasoning or cited any legal authority. We construe pro se filings liberally, but all litigants must comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8), which requires that a brief contain a cogent argument with citations to authority. Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545–46 (7th Cir. 2001). In her brief, Otis merely repeats her contention that her apartment manager knew she was disabled. But Otis points to no evidence to raise an inference of discrimination because, as the district court explained, the manager did not terminate Otis’s tenancy. Accordingly, Otis’s appeal is dismissed. Defendants have also moved for sanctions against Otis under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. That rule authorizes us to award “single or double costs” if the appeal is frivolous and the appellant has had a “reasonable opportunity to respond.” See FED. R. APP. P. 38. Otis never responded to the appellees’ motion, and her argument on appeal is frivolous in that it is undeveloped and not responsive to the district court’s ruling. See Jaworksi v. Master Hand Contractors, Inc., 882 F.3d 686, 691 (7th Cir. 2018). We now order Otis to pay double the costs that the appellees incurred in this appeal. We add that the failure to pay this sanction may lead to a filing bar under Support Systems International, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995). We DISMISS the appeal and GRANT the motion for sanctions.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
