2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-21-2009 

# J ohn G agli ardi v

. V e ri zon P A Inc P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2520

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" J o hn G agl i ar d i v

. V e r i z on P A Inc " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 60. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/60NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 2520

___________ JO H N G A G L IA R D I, A ppel l ant
v. V E R IZ O N P E N N S Y L V A N IA IN C .;

A T& T C O RP.

____________________________________ A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 08- cv- 00892) D i stri ctJudg e: H on orabl e D on et t a W . A m brose

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber18, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , H A R D I M A N and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: D ece m ber21, 2009)

_________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_________ P E R C UR I AM J ohn G agl i ar di , pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s part i al di s m i s s al of hi s or i gi nal compl ai ntand compl et e di s m i s s al of hi s amended compl ai nt . Forthe r eas ons t h a tf o l l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m.2 I. In June 2 00 8, G agli ardi fi l ed a co m plai nt i n P enn sy l van i a st at e cou rtagainst V er i zon Penns y l vani a I nc. ( “V er i zon”) , A T & T C orp. ( “A T & T ”) , E qui fax I nform at i on Ser vi ces L L C ( “Equi fax” ) , E xper i an I nform at i on Sol ut i ons , I nc. ( “Exper i an”) , T r ans U ni on, L L C ( “Tra ns U ni on”) , and A l l i ed I nt er s t at e, I nc. G agl i ar di al l eged, i nt eral i a, t hat V er i zon and A T & T had pr ovi ded i nacc ur at e i nform at i on abouthi m t o E qui fax, E xper i an, and Tra ns U ni on i n r et al i at i on forhi s eff or t s dat i ng back t o t he 1970s t o expos e a l ongrunni ng fr aud comm i t t ed byt he “A T & T / B el l s y s t em. ” The com pl ai ntr ai s ed a hos tof
s t at e l aw cl ai m s , as w el l as cl ai m s underthe Fai rC r edi tR epor t i ng A ct( “FC R A ”) , 15 U .S .C . § 1 6 8 1 e t s e q ., a n d F a irD e b t C o lle c tio n P ra c tic e s A c t, 1 5 U .S .C . § 1 6 9 2 e t s e q . Shor t l yaft erT r ans U ni on r emoved t he ca s e t o fede r al cour tand ans w er ed the
com plai nt, G agli ardi at t em pted t o am end the co m plai nt. T hat att em pt, sty l ed as his “F i rs t A m ended Com pl ai nt , ” w as uns ucce s s ful beca us e he di d nots eek l eave t o amend, as re q u ire d b yF e d . R . C iv . P . 1 5 (a )(2 ). L a ter , V e riz o n a n d A T & T e a c h f iled a m o tio n to di s m i s s forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m . O n February12, 2009, the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed the t w o m ot i ons i n par tand deni ed them i n par t . T he courthel d t hat , “otherthan hi s C ount forr et al i at i on, [G agl i ar di ] has fai l ed t o al l ege f act s s ugges t i ve of c onductpr os cr i bed by the a sserted ca u ses o f a cti o n . ” (O p inion o f F eb . 1 2 , 2 0 0 9 , at 10 . ) A s su ch , the c o u rt di s m i s s ed al l of the cl ai m s agai ns tV er i zon and A T & T – w i t h t he exc ept i on of the
r et al i at i on cl ai m – w i t houtpr ej udi ce. I n doi ng s o, the courts t at ed thati tw oul d al l owW e have j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. T hat 1 G agl i ar di ’ s not i ce of

appea l di d notr efe rt o t he February2009 or der– he fi r s ti ndi cat ed hi s i nt ent i on t o appea l t hator deri n hi s openi ng br i ef – doe s notpr ecl ude us fr om r evi ew i ng t hator der . See Shea v. Sm i t h, 966 F. 2d 127, 129 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( s t at i ng that “app el l at e j uri sdi ct i on vest s over orders no tspeci fi ed in the n oti ce of app eal i f t here i s a connec t i on betw een the s peci fi ed and uns peci fi ed or der [s ] , the i nt ent i on t o appea l the u n sp e c if ied o rd e r is a p p a re n t, th e o p p o sin g p a rtyis n o t p re ju d ice d a n d h a s a f

u ll o p p o rtu n ityto b ri ef

the issu es” ). A l t hough G agl i ar di ’ s r epl ybr i ef a r gues thathe pr es erved hi s abi l i t yt o chal l enge 2 t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s r et al i at i on cl ai m , thatbr i ef, l i ke hi s openi ng br i ef, does notaddr es s t he mer i t s of the court ’ s deci s i on. 3 G agl i ar di “a s i ngl e oppor tuni t yt o at t empt t o r epl ead hi s [di s m i s s ed] cl ai m s , ” pr ovi ded he
m a d e th a t a tte m p t w ith in f o u rt e e n d a y s . (I d . a t 1 1 .) L es s t han fourt een da y s aft erthe court ’ s or der , G agl i ar di fi l ed an a m ended compl ai nt , s t y l ed as “Pl ai nt i ff’ s Second A m ended Com pl ai nt . ” Thi s amended compl ai nt named onl yV er i zon and A T & T as defe ndant s – G agl i ar di s t i pul at ed t o t he di s m i s s al of th e o th e r f

o u r d e f e n d a n ts – a n d a lleg e d o n lyo n e c laim : re talia tio n . A s b e f o re , b o th V er i zon and A T & T m oved t o di s m i s s forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m . O n A pr i l 23, 2009, t he D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted b o th m o ti o n s. G ag li ard i no w ap p ea ls th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s F eb rua ry 12 , 20 09 and A pri l 23 , 20 09 orders . 1 II. G a g liard i h a s f

a iled to p re se n t a v iab le a rg u m e n t in su p p o rt o f th is a p p e a l. F irst, he has w ai ved anychal l enge t o t he di s m i s s al of hi s r et al i at i on cl ai m , as hi s openi ng br i ef di d notdi s cus s t hatcl ai m , i ns t ead f ocus i ng on t he FC R A and ci vi l cons pi r acycl ai m s fr om h is o ri g in a l c o m p la in t. S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . P e lu llo , 3 9 9 F .3 d 1 9 7 , 2 2 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 2E v en if h e c o u ld raise this i ssu e, i t no n ethe less lack s m erit , as th e D istri ct C o u rt 3 d i d n o te r ri n d i s mi s s i n g h i s c i v i l c o n s p i r a c yc l a i m f o rf a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m. 4 Second, hi s di s cus s i on of hi s FC R A cl ai m i s i r r el evantt o t hi s appea l , as he neve ras s ert ed t hatcl ai m agai ns tV er i zon orA T & T . Fi nal l y , al t hough he di d as s erthi s ci vi l cons pi r acy cl ai m againstV eri zon and A T & T , he can no tchall eng e t he d i sm i ssal of thatcl ai m becau se he nei t herr eas s er t ed i ti n hi s amended compl ai nt( des pi t e havi ng an oppor tuni t yt o do s o)
nori ndi cat ed thathe i nt ended t o s t and on thatcl ai m as or i gi nal l ypl eade d. See U ni t ed 3 S tat es e x rel. A tkinso n v . P a. S h ipb u il d ing C o . , 4 7 3 F . 3 d 5 0 6 , 5 1 6 -17 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). I n l i ghtof the above , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s February12, 2009 and A p ril 2 3 , 2 0 0 9 o rd e rs. G a g liard i’s re q u e sts to c o n d u c t d isc o v e rya n d f u rth e r a m e n d h is compl ai ntar e deni ed.