Jill Otis v. VERONICA BULAON and ACC MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.

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.
VERONICA BULAON and ACC
MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.,
Defendants‐Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
No. 21‐CV‐954‐SCD
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).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

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. A PP. 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.

-- 2 of 2 --