exists as to this court’s subject matter jurisdiction, it is our obligation to raise it, sua sponte, even though, as here, no party has asked us to consider it.”) (citation and alterations omitted). 36 . Henderson v. Shinseki, -U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1203, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011). 37 . See Gatewood v. District of Columbia Water & Sewer Auth., 82 A.3d 41, 48 (D.C.2013) (explaining that claims-processing rules are "typically promulgated by a decision-making body” and jurisdictional rules are "most often legislative enactments”); id. at 46 ("Jurisdictional rules may be raised at any point in the proceedings and are not subject to waiver, however late they are invoked S. 312, 316, 108 S.Ct. 2405, 101 L.Ed.2d 285 (1988)); Vines v. Mfrs. & Traders Trust Co., 935 A.2d 1078, 1083 (D.C.2007) (<HOLDING>). 43 . Gonzalez v. Thaler, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct.
holding that appellant complied with rule 3as requirement to designate the judgment or order appealed where it was clear from the face of the notice of appeal which judgment appellant sought to appeal holding that the failure to join all the defendants in a removal petition is not a jurisdictional defect holding that failure to designate the judgment or order being appealed is a jurisdictional defect holding jurisdictional defect voids judgment when defect exposes such personal jurisdictional deficiencies as to violate due process holding that a violation of the forum defendant rule is a jurisdictional defect