Question not identified.

No question identified. : DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 23-CV-0553 | ANGELA POWELL, APPELLANT, APR18 2025 j Lo Vv DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA . COURT OF APPEALS EDMONDSON & GALLAGHER PROPERTY SERVICES, LLC, APPELLEE. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (2021-CA-003973-B) (Hon. Danya A. Dayson, Motions Judge) (Submitted April 3, 2025 Decided April 18, 2025) Before MCLEESE, HOWARD, and SHANKER, Associate Judges. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT PER CURIAM: Appellant Angela Powell, representing herself, sued appellee Edmondson & Gallagher Property Services, LLC (E&G) in Superior Court, asserting personal injury and property damage claims based on the presence of mold in her apartment in Southeast Washington, D.C. The trial court granted E&G’s motion for summary judgment—to which Ms. Powell filed no opposition—on the ground that Ms. Powell, who had not submitted any expert testimony, failed to offer sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact that the alleged mold in her apartment caused her claimed injuries. On appeal, Ms. Powell (represented by counsel at the time of briefing) does not challenge the merits of the trial court’s determination that a lack of evidence on causation supported a grant of summary judgment for E&G. Rather, she argues that the trial court failed to provide her, as a pro se plaintiff, sufficient guidance and leeway regarding both obtaining discovery and opposing summary judgment, and that this court should reverse and remand so that she can move under Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(d) for additional time for discovery. Finding no error in the trial court’s handling of the matter, we affirm. I. Background The following facts appear to be undisputed. In her complaint, Ms. Powell alleged that mold and mold spores were present in her apartment at 3539 A Street, SE, for seven years. She claimed that the mold caused inflammation and other injuries to her, her son, and her granddaughter. Ms. Powell sought $1.5 million in damages. At an initial status conference, the trial court denied E&G’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The court also noted that it had sent Ms. Powell a copy of the Superior Court’s “Handbook for People Who Represent Themselves in Civil Cases” and that it would email her an additional copy. See Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Civil Division, Handbook for People Who Represent Themselves in Civil Cases, (the “pro se handbook’). The court told Ms. Powell that it could not give her legal advice and that she was required to follow the procedural rules, but that the court would make sure she understood what was happening and give her “a certain amount of leeway with respect to the pleadings.” The court also encouraged Ms. Powell to obtain legal representation but stated that if she proceeded pro se, she would need to look at the rules. At a second hearing, the trial court told Ms. Powell that the court would issue an order telling the parties “the dates that certain things have to happen, like the dates that you have to exchange fact witness lists, the dates that you have to file your expert reports, your discovery requests, when discovery closes, when you have to file motions, all of those things.” The court also confirmed that Ms. Powell had received the pro se handbook and again encouraged her to find an attorney. During the discovery period, Ms. Powell filed a praecipe with the court, stating that she had orally asked E&G for a mold report that followed an inspection conducted on July 5, 2022, and that E&G was not providing the report. In an attachment to a subsequent motion seeking to file exhibits with the court, Ms. Powell wrote that she still had not received the mold report. At a third hearing, the trial court told Ms. Powell that the way to obtain a document from a defendant is by serving the defendant with a discovery request; Ms. Powell acknowledged that she had not done that. The court reiterated that a motion to the court was not th