09

- 33 18

- cv J or dan v. V er i zon Cor p. UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER RU L I NG S B Y S UM M ARY ORD E R DO N OT HA VE P RE CE DE NT I AL E F F E CT . C I T AT I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORD ER FI LED ON OR A FT ER J ANU ARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P ERM I TTED AND I S GO VERN ED BY FE DERA L RULE OF APP ELLATE P RO CEDU RE 3 2 . 1 AND THI S COUR T’ S LOCAL RU LE 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W HEN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORD ER I N A DO CUM ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S COU RT, A P ARTY M US T CI TE EI TH E R T HE F E DE RA L A P P E ND I X OR A N E L E CT RO NI C DA T AB AS E ( W I T H T HE N OT AT I ON “ S UM M ARY ORD ER” ) . A P ARTY C I TI NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T S ERVE A COP Y OF I T ON ANY PARTY NO T REPRES ENTED BY CO UNSEL. A t a s tate d ter m o f th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo r th e S e c o n d C irc u it, h e ld at t he D ani el Pat r i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C our t hous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n t he C i t y of N ew Y or k, on t he 13 day of A ugus t , t w o t hous and t en. th P RES ENT : ROS EM ARY S. P OOLER,

RO BE RT D. S AC K, R E E N A R A G G I,

C i r cui tJudges

.

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ KAT HR YN J OR DAN, P l ai nt i f f

-Appel l ant , v. N o. 09- 3318- cv VE RI Z ON C OR P OR AT I ON, D ef endant

-Appel l ee , PA U L H A STI N G S, D ef endant

.

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ A P P E A R IN G F O R A P P E L L A N T : K A T H R Y N J O R D A N , p ro se , N e w Yor k, N ew Y or k. A PPE A R I N G FO R A PPE L L E E : K E N N E T H W

. G A G E , Paul , H as t i ngs , J anof s ky & W al ker L L P , C hicago, Il l i no i s. Ap pe al f rom the Un ite d St ate s Di str ict C ourt fo r th e S outhe rn D ist ric t of Ne w Y ork

(G erard E. Lynch, Judge ).Jor dan’s notic e of appeal stat es that she appeals from, inter a lia , “the full Opinion and 1 Order entered on Decem ber 10th, 2008, whereby [the district court] GRANTE D De fendant Ve riz on ’s M oti on

to D ism iss Ap pe llant’ s Am en de d C om pla int .” Be cau se t

he dis tri ct c ourt e nte red jud gm ent di sm iss ingJo rdan’s am en de d c om pla int on May 29 , 2 00 9, we constr

ue Jo rdan’s no tic e as seeking t o appeal thatjudgment. 2 ON CONSID ER

AT IONWHE RE OF , I T I S H ER EB Y ORDERE D, ADJUD GED, AND DECRE ED that th e ap pe al f rom the distr ict

co urt ’s M ay29 , 2 00 9 ju dg m ent [Docket No. 26] is DISMISSED , the d istric t c ourt’ s June 2 9, 2 00 9 o rde r is AFFIRMED , and the m oti on

fo r de fa ult jud gm ent or

rem an d is DENIED as m oo t. Pro s e pla int if

f K athryn Jo rdan a pp eal s f rom the dis tri ct c ourt’ s d ism iss al o f h er am en de d complaint and the denial of her motion for rec onsiderat ion, r ecusal, and sanc tions. We assume the

1 parties ’ familiarity with the facts and recor d of prior proceedi ngs. 1. Ap pe al f

rom the Ju dg m ent of

Di sm iss al Be cau se J ord an ’s July

27 , 2 00 9 n oti ce o f ap pe al wa s no t f ile d wi thi n thi rtyd ay s o f t he May 29, 2009 judgment, seeFed. R. App. P. 4(a )( 1) (A ), and Jor dan’s June 29, 2009 motion for reconsider ation was filed more than twenty- eight days afterthe judgment was entered, seeFed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)( vi), we dismiss Jordan’s appeal from t he May 29 j udgment for lack of jurisdi ction, seeB ow les v . R ussell , 55 1 U. S. 205 , 20 9 (20 07 ) (no tin g th at “ tak ingof anap pe al w ith in the prescr ibed time is ‘mandatory and juri sdictiona l’”). 2. Appeal from the District Court’ s Denial of Reconsidera tion On Jordan’ s ti mely appeal from the denial of her motion for reconsider ation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), our revi ew is lim ited to abuse of discret ion, and “we m ust affirm . . . unless the ruling is based on an erroneous view of the law or on aclearl y erroneous a ss es sme nto f the evide nce.” R o d r igu e z v . Mi tc h ell , 25 2 F. 3d 191, 200 (2d Cir . 2001) (inte rnal quotat ion marks and alterat ion om itt ed). W e cann ot c on clu de that th e d ist ric t co urt ab us ed its dis cre tio n in

thi s ca se.

a. Subject Mat ter Juri sdiction A plaintiff assert ing subjectmatter jurisdi ction has the burden of proving its existence by a preponderance of the evidence. See Morrison v. Nat’l Austl. Bank Ltd. , 54 7 F. 3d 167 , 1 70 (2d

Ci r. 2008). When, as in this case, the defendant challenges the factual basi s for the plaint iff’s asserti on of jurisdict ion , “ [j ]u

ris dic tio n m

ust be shown affirmatively, and that s howing is not made by drawing fr om the pl ead ing s inf

ere nc es f av ora ble to t he partyass ert ingit. ” AP WU v. Po tte r , 343 F.3d 619,Like the district court, we do not considerthe chall enged pension be ne fi ts a s part of our 2 review of the amount in controversy becaus e we conclude thatany such clai m is precluded by the jud gm ents i n J ord an ’s p rio r ac tio ns . W e d o n ot a dd

res s Jordan’s appell ate argum ent th at the dis tri ct c ourt h ad su pp lem ental 3 jurisdi ction over he r claims based on thei r re la ti on to herprior la wsuits, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367, because Jordan did not raise such an argument in the districtcourt, seeSingleton v. Wul ff , 428 U.S. 10 6, 12 0 (1 97 6) ( “[ A] fed era l app ell ate court do es no t co ns ide r an iss ue no t pa sse d u

po n b elo w. ”). It would be inappr opriate for us t o address the issue in the f irst instanc e because a district court may, in its discretion, decli ne to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under certai n circumstances. Se e28 U. S. C. § 1 36 7(c ); Phillips v . Audio Active Ltd. , 4 94 F. 3d 37 8, 39 2 (2 d C ir. 20 07 ). 3 62 3 (2 d C ir. 20 03 ) (i nte rna l qu otatio n m ark s o m itt ed); seeals o R ob ins on v. Go v’t of M ala ysi a , 269 F. 3d 13 3, 14 0 (2 d C ir. 20 01 ). Here, defendant Verizon C or po ra ti on chal lenged Jordan’ s allegat ion that the damages arising from Verizon’s al leged breac h of its obligat ion t o schedul e an exit i nterview sat isfied the $75,000 amount in controversy required for a feder al court t o exercise diversity jurisdi ction. Se e28 U.S.C. § 1 33 2. In d ism iss ingJo rdan’s ori gin al c om pla int , th e d ist

ric t co urt no ted th at J ord anall eg ed

on ly 2 that damages exceeded $15,000, and dir ected Jordan to submit a jur isdicti onal affidavit expla ining why d am ag es aris ingfr om Ve riz on ’s a lle ge d b rea chex cee de d $ 75 ,0 00 . In fi linghe r am en de d complaint, however, Jordan fa il edt o pr ov ide any such expl anation. Having fail ed to adduce any ev ide nc e th at he r cla im

sati sf ied the am ount- in- co ntr ov ers y req uir em ent, Jo rdan did

no t carryhe r jurisdi ctional bur den. See, e.g. , Scherer v . E qu ita bleLi

fe A ssu ra nc e S

oc ’y o f U nited Sta tes , 347 F. 3d 39 4, 39 7 (2 d C ir. 20 03 ) (“ A p arty inv ok ingthe juris dic tio n of the f ed era l co urt

ha s th e b urd en of pro vin g th at i t appe ars to a ‘re aso na ble pro ba bil ity ’ th at the cla im

is i n e xc ess of

the statut ory jurisdi ctional a mount.” (internal quot ation marks omitted)). Accordingl y, we identify no abuse of discret ion in the di strictcourt’s de cision decl ining to re consider i ts juri sdictiona l ruling. 3

b. Claims Precluded by Prior Acti ons Nordo we id en ti fy abu se o f d is cr et io n i n the di stri ctco urt’ s c on cl us io n tha t J or dan’ s c la ims concerning the negotiat ion and entry of the sett lement agreement were barred by res jud ica ta . Our comparison of Jordan’s complaints and the di strictcourt’s j udgments in Jordan v. Veriz on Corp. , No. 02 C iv

. 10144 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2004), aff ’d, N o. 04 -55 81 -cv , 2 00 5 WL 3 11 67 50 (2d Ci r. Nov. 22, 2005) , and Jordan v. Verizon Corp. , No

. 02 C iv. 10 14 4, 20 07 W L 4 59 19 24 (S .D .N .Y . D ec. 27 , 20 07 ), in dic ate s that Jor dan’s clai m s we re, or cou ld h av e b een , li tig ate d in tho se e arl ier

act ion s, seeFe de ra ted

De p’t Sto res, In c. v. Moi tie , 452 U.S. 39 4, 3 98 ( 19 81) (“A final judgment on the m eri ts o f an a cti on

pre clu de s the part ies or the ir pr ivi es f rom relit igatin g iss ue s that w ere or c ou ld have been rai sed in thataction.”)

.4 c. Re cu salof

Ju dg e L yn ch Fi na lly , it ap pe ars that th e o nly

ba sis fo r Jo rdan’s mo tio n f or Jud ge Lync h’s rec us al w as h er dis ag ree m e nt w it

hh is d is m iss al r

uli ng s. Su chdisa gre em ent “a lm os t ne ve r co ns tit ute [s ] a va lid ba sis fo r a b ias or p art ial itym oti on .” Li tek y v. Un ite d S

tates , 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Our review of the rec ord co nf irm s th at “ a re aso na

ble pe rso n k

no wi ngallthe f

act s wo uld

not th ink that th e Ju dg e’s im p art ia li ty m ight r e a s o n ab ly

b e qu e s ti on ed .” Un ite d S tates v . P ite ra , 5 F. 3d

62 4, 62 7 (2 d C ir. 1993). W e h av e co ns ide red Jo rdan’s o the r argum ents on a pp ealand co nc lud e th at the y la ck

m eri t. Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal from the distr ict court ’s May 29, 2009 judgment, AFFIRM the distr ict court ’s June 29, 2009 order , and DENY as m oot Jordan’s m otion for a default judgm ent or remand.

FOR THECOURT : CA TH ERIN E O ’H AGANW OL FE , C ler k o f C ourt