Whether the statute of limitations was improperly applied despite fraudulent concealment

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . 1. Whether it was error for the Honorable Brian F. Holeman, Associate Judge, District of Columbia Superior Court, to deny leave to submit an amended complaint deemed a “futility of amendment” beyond the allowable statute of limitations? 2. Whether it was error for the court below to find an oral contract between the Petitioners to be insufficient to Support standing to Petitioner Jenkins to appear as a party plaintiff in the court below? 3. Whether it was error for the court below to deny Petitioners’ timely motion for leave to supplement the record to prevent a manifest injustice? 4. Whether it was error for court below to allow party Defendant-Appellee Adam Helfer to be dismissed from the case for lack of service when the evidence clearly showed that this Defendant engaged in affirmative acts to conceal his whereabouts? 5. Whether it was error for the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in a per curiam Memorandum Opinion and Judgment to find that the statute of limitations had run, even though parties opposing Petitioners had engaged in lulling and fraudulent concealment? 2 V IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI | Petitioners Albert Jenkins and Theresa Lowther respectfully pray that a writ of . certiorari issue to review the judgment below or, in the alternative, that the Court issue a summary remand directing that the Petitioners be allowed to submit an amended complaint in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. ; OPINIONS BELOW The opinion issued as a per curiam Memorandum and Judgment on April 17, 2018, by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals appears as