Arun K. Chhabra v. Acw New Jersey, Inc.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1806
ARUN K. CHHABRA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ACW NEW JERSEY, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:24-cv-00150-LMB-WEF)
Submitted: July 29, 2025 Decided: July 31, 2025
Before KING, WYNN, and BERNER Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arun K. Chhabra, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew D. Berkowitz, CARR MALONEY, PC,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Arun K. Chhabra appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant summary
judgment in Chhabra’s pro se civil suit—a premises liability action that sounded in Virginia
law—which Defendant removed to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a),
1441(b). The court also denied Chhabra’s request to stay the underlying matter to allow
Chhabra, who is an attorney, more time to obtain legal representation. We have reviewed
the record in conjunction with the arguments raised on appeal* and discern no reversible
error or abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Chhabra
v. ACW N.J., Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00150-LMB-WEF (E.D. Va. filed July 25, 2024 & entered
July 26, 2024).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
* Defendant moves to strike Chhabra’s informal reply brief in which Chhabra raised
new arguments and presented new evidence that is not part of the record. We deny the
motion to strike because the Clerk’s Office extended the deadline for filing a reply.
However, we observe that the new issues and arguments are waived, see Clendening v.
United States, 19 F.4th 421, 430 n.7 (4th Cir. 2021) (“A party waives an argument by
raising it for the first time in its reply brief.” (internal quotation marks and brackets
omitted)), and that the new evidence attached to the reply brief is not properly before this
court because it was not tendered to the district court.

-- 2 of 2 --