# Malhotra v. Watergate at Landmark (WAL) Condominium Ass'n

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · October 28, 2007 · 251 F. App'x 830

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8624450

## Case

- **Full name:** Sanjeev MALHOTRA v. WATERGATE AT LANDMARK (WAL) CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, WAL Board of Directors and/or its assignees, Defendant—Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 28, 2007
- **Citations:** 251 F. App'x 830
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Motz, Traxler, Wilkinson
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8624450

## Opinion text

PER CURIAM:
Sanjeev Malhotra appeals the district court’s order’s denying his motions to reopen and for sanctions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Malhotra v. Watergate at Landmark Condo. Assoc., No. 1:05-cv-00076-LMB (E.D. Va. Apr. 4 & 6, 2007). We deny Appellee’s motion for *831 sanctions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8624450. Public record. Not legal advice.