2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-18-2011

Oparaji v. NE Auto Marine Terminal

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-1649

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Oparaji v. NE Auto Marine Terminal" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 858.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/858
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 11-1649

____________

MAURICE OPARAJI,

Appellant,

v.

NORTH EAST AUTO-MARINE TERMINAL; A.T.I., 

U.S.A., INC.; RICARDO FURFARO; HUAL 

NORTH AMERICA, INC., a/k/a AUTOLINERS INC.

__________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civ. No. 2-04-cv-06445)

District Judge: Honorable Susan D. Wigenton

__________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

July 14, 2011

Before: SCIRICA, SMITH and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 18, 2011)

____________

OPINION

____________

PER CURIAM

Appellant Maurice Oparaji filed a civil action in 2004 in the United States District 

Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging, in pertinent part, that North East AutoMarine Terminal and others breached a contract with him to ship a 1983 International 

truck outfitted with dredging equipment from the Port of New York to Lagos, Nigeria. 

Oparaji sought in excess of $815,000 in money damages. On October 23, 2007, a jury 
2

returned a verdict in favor of the defendants on all counts. “Briefly, a jury no-caused 

[Oparaji] on his allegations that the defendants had, among other things, converted his 

property, were in breach of contract, and had committed conspiracy and fraud.” (District 

Court Order, 12/08/09, at 1.) That same day, the District Court, sua sponte, issued an 

order (1) noting that Oparaji’s truck remained on North East Auto-Marine Terminal’s 

property without cost to him since May, 2004, and (2) directing the United States 

Marshals Service to supervise the return of the truck to Oparaji.

Oparaji sought relief from the verdict under Rules 59 and 60, Fed. R. Civ. Pro., 

and he sought to enjoin the order concerning the return of his truck. With respect to the 

truck, the District Court determined that the defendants had no further obligation to store 

it; the court thus denied a stay. See Oparaji v. North East Auto-Marine Terminal, Inc., 

2007 WL 3226605 (D.N.J. Oct. 29, 2007). Soon thereafter, the District Court denied 

Oparaji a new trial, rejecting his contention that the jury was somehow misled by the 

court’s instructions on agency. The court also found unpersuasive Oparaji’s allegations 

of fraud. Oparaji appealed, and we affirmed. See Oparaji v. North East Auto-Marine 

Terminal, 297 Fed. Appx. 142, 146 (3d Cir. 2008) (per curiam).

About a year later, Oparaji filed an item titled simply “Judgment,” without citing 

any authority in the federal rules or statutes for the filing. In this “Judgment,” Oparaji 

claimed that the defendants had failed to return his 1983 International truck and dredging 

equipment, and he demanded a money judgment in the amount of $198,750.00. The 

defendants’ attorneys filed declarations in opposition to the “Judgment.” North East 

Auto-Marine Terminal’s attorney asserted that Oparaji had failed to cooperate with 

several requests by the U.S. Marshal to facilitate the return of his truck; and that North 
3

East Auto-Marine Terminal had stored Oparaji’s truck for more than one year after the 

District Court’s Order, after which time it ceased doing business in November, 2008 and 

closed its yard. Oparaji’s truck had thereafter been “scrapped” by a third-party towing 

company. 

The District Court issued an order denying the “Judgment” requested by Oparaji. 

The court found that Oparaji’s request “distort[ed]” its prior order and “upend[ed] the 

jury’s verdict.” (District Court Order, 12/08/09, at 2.) In accordance with circuit 

precedent, see Matter of Packer Ave. Associates, 884 F.2d 745 (3d Cir. 1989); Chipps v. 

United States Dist. Ct. for the Middle Dist. of Pa., 882 F.2d 72 (3d Cir. 1989); Gagliardi 

v. McWilliams, 834 F.2d 81 (3d Cir. 1987), the District Court gave Oparaji notice that it 

would impose Rule 11 sanctions in the event of further meritless filings. Oparaji

appealed.

Construing the “Judgment” as a motion to hold the defendants in contempt of the 

District Court’s October 23, 2007 order, we held that the District Court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying Oparaji’s request for a money judgment and affirmed. See Oparaji 

v. North East Auto-Marine Terminal, 372 Fed. Appx. 331 (3d Cir. 2010) (per curiam). 

We explained:

Oparaji argues that ... the October 23 order required [the defendants] to 

return the truck or initiate its return.... [H]owever, the October 23 order 

contemplated that Oparaji would assume responsibility for the truck, which 

he resisted doing for almost two years. The order did not require 

defendants to initiate that process or store the truck indefinitely .... 

Oparaji does not allege that defendants failed to cooperate with the Marshal 

in any respect or otherwise impeded his ability to retrieve the truck. Nor 

does he challenge the District Court’s finding that he failed to make any 

arrangements to retrieve the truck himself.

 
4

Id. at 333 (emphasis added). In concluding, we declined, for the time being, the 

defendants’ request that we enjoin Oparaji from filing any further lawsuits. See id. at 

334.

On July 8, 2010, Oparaji filed an actual motion for contempt and a separate 

motion for the recusal of United States District Judge Katharine S. Hayden. In his 

motion for contempt, Oparaji sought essentially the same relief as before; that is, he 

sought to hold the defendants in contempt for failing to comply with the District Court’s 

October 23, 2007 order. In addition, Oparaji claimed that racial animosity on the part of 

the defendants was the reason why they never returned his 1983 International truck.

The case was reassigned to the Honorable Susan D. Wigenton for reasons that are 

not apparent from the record. Judge Wigenton, in an order entered on February 10, 2011,

denied Oparaji’s motion for contempt for the “same reasons stated in Judge Hayden’s 

December 8, 2009 Opinion.” Judge Wigenton denied Oparaji’s motion to recuse as moot

because Judge Hayden was no longer assigned to his case.

1

Oparaji appeals the order denying his motion for contempt. We have jurisdiction

over the District Court’s post-judgment order denying his motion for contempt under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291. See Berne Corp. v. Gov’t of the Virgin Islands, 570 F.3d 130, 135 n.10 

(3d Cir. 2009).

 Oparaji then filed a motion 

for clarification and reconsideration, which Judge Wigenton denied in an order entered 

on March 2, 2011.

 1 A motion is moot when a court is unable to fashion any form of meaningful relief, see

Artway v. Att’y Gen. of New Jersey, 81 F.3d 1235, 1246 (3d Cir. 1996). Granting 

Oparaji’s motion would have been meaningless since his case was no longer assigned to 

Judge Hayden.
5

We will affirm. Our review of the denial of the motion for contempt is for an 

abuse of discretion. See Roe v. Operation Rescue, 54 F.3d 133, 137 (3d Cir. 1995). The 

abuse of discretion standard is met only where the District Court’s decision is based on 

an erroneous conclusion of law, or where the record contains no evidence upon which the 

court rationally could have based that decision, or where the supposed facts found are 

clearly erroneous. See In re: TMI Litigation, 193 F.3d 613, 666 (3d Cir. 1999), as

amended, 199 F.3d 158 (3d Cir. 2000). 

We have already decided the issue presented by this appeal. Judge Hayden 

previously found that her order did not require the defendants to initiate the process of 

returning Oparaji’s truck, or require the defendants to store the truck indefinitely, and, on 

appeal, we concluded that Judge Hayden’s interpretation of her own order was not an 

abuse of discretion. See Oparaji, 372 Fed. Appx. at 333 (citing Gibbs v. Frank, 500 F.3d 

202, 206 (3d Cir. 2007)). Oparaji’s arguments have been properly rejected, and we find 

no basis in his brief on appeal for reconsideration of his arguments. 

The jury found in favor of the defendants on all issues and Oparaji does not claim 

that the jury was racially biased. The District Court’s October 23, 2007 order 

contemplated that Oparaji, having lost his breach of contract action, would take it upon 

himself to retrieve his truck from the property of defendant North East Auto-Marine 

Terminal. Instead, Oparaji abandoned his truck on the private property of North East 

Auto-Marine Terminal. His argument essentially is that the defendants owed him a duty 

in perpetuity to store the truck, but there is no legal basis for the argument on this record. 

Accordingly, the defendants are not liable for contempt of the District Court’s October 

23, 2007 order.
6

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of the District Court denying 

Oparaji’s motion for contempt. Having considered Oparaji’s arguments against an 

injunction, and finding them unpersuasive, we will grant the defendants’ renewed request 

for an order enjoining Oparaji. We agree that the contempt motion was vexatious and 

that the truck-related claims are likely to continue absent some restriction on Oparaji. 

See Chipps, 882 F.2d at 73. Oparaji is hereby enjoined from filing any further pleadings, 

motions, or other items relating to these truck-related claims without prior authorization 

from the District Court.