City of Winter Haven, 320 U.S. 228, 234, 64 S.Ct. 7, 88 L.Ed. 9 (1943); see also Sigmund v. Progressive Northern Ins. Co., 374 F.Supp.2d 33, 36 (D.D.C.2005) (“A federal court exercising diversity jurisdiction ... is not to ‘make bold forays into terra incognita in order to chart the way to justice, but ... faithfully to apply the law of the state that the courts of the jurisdiction in which we sit, the District of Columbia, would apply[.]’ ”) (citing Dayton v. Peck, Stow & Wilcox Co., 739 F.2d 690, 694-95 (1st Cir.1984) (“[W]e see no basis for even considering the pros and cons of innovative theories.... We must apply the law of the forum as we infer it presently to be, not as it might come to be.”)); M.A.S., Inc. v. Van Curler Broadcasting Corp., 357 F.Supp. 686, 691-92 (D.D.C.1973) (<HOLDING>), this cannot be said here. The District’s “no
holding that the court need not follow a decision of the district of columbia court of appeals where  it appears that the  court of appeals itself would not follow that decision holding that the federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review plaintiffs complaint to the extent they sought review  of the district of columbia court of appeals denial of their petitions holding that the court of appeals may not overrule modify or withdraw language from a previously published decision of the court of appeals holding that where the issue of sanctions was not before the court of appeals when the appeal was filed the district court retained jurisdiction holding the fact remains however that such standard appears to be the law of this state as enunciated in the decisions of the court of appeals discussed previously unless those decisions are either explained away or overruled by the court of appeals itself this court must follow what a majority of its members discern to be the precept to be drawn from them ie proof of fraud in a civil action either in law or in equity must be clear and convincing only the court of appeals could disabuse of that notion