2007 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 8-1-2007 

# Azubuk o v . B ell Natl O rg 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 . 07-1687

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_2007

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 2007 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 " Azubuko v

. Be ll Natl Org " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 639. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/639DL D- 3 0 5 NOT 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 . 07- 1687

________________ CH UKWUM A E . AZ UB UKO, A ppel l ant

v. BE L L NAT I ONAL OR GANI Z AT I ON; J AQUE L I NE S E DGE RI CK , I N I NDI VI DUAL AND OF F I CI AL CA P AC I T Y; M AU RI CE N OB LES, I N I ND I VI DU AL A ND OFFI CI AL C APA CI TY

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

Forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i v. N o. 05- cv- 05647) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R obertB . K ugl er

____________________________________ S u b mi t t e d F o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l Un d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n U n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 J ul y19, 2007 BE FO RE : BA RR Y , A M BR O a nd FI SH ER , CI RC U I T J U D G ES.

( Fi l ed: A ugus t1, 2007 )

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM2

T h is i s an ap p ea l from the D istri ct C o u rt ’s dism issal of C h u k w u m a A zu b u k o ’s c o mp l a i n t . F o rth e f

o l l o wi n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l d i s mi s s th i s a p p e a l . S e e 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B )(i ). On De c e mb e r1 , 2 0 0 5 , Az u b u k o i n i t i a t e d th i s a c t i o n b yf i l i n g a c o mp l a i n t . On J anuary10, the D i s tr i ctC our ti s s ued an or derfi ndi ng the compl ai ntdefi ci ent , i nt eral i a, forfai l ur e t o compl yw i th Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 8( a) . T he courtdi r ect ed A z u b u k o to f

ile a n a m e n d e d c o m p la in t b yJ a n u a ry 2 4 o r t h e m a tte r w o u ld b e d is m is s e d . O n J anuary18, A zubuko fi l ed a mot i on forr econs i der at i on of the court ’ s or der ; he fa i l ed, how ever , t o fi l e an a m ended c om pl ai nt . O n February9, w el l aft erthe i m pos ed dea dl i ne, the courtdi s m i s s ed the compl ai nt . A zubuko fi l ed a mot i on forr econs i der at i on w hi ch the c o u rt d e n ied o n Ju ly5 , 2 0 0 6 . O n Ja n u a ry8 , 2 0 0 7 , A z u b u k o f iled a m o tio n to re o p e n h is ca se u n d er F ed era l R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 6 0 (b). O n F eb rua ry1 3 , the D istri ct C o u rt d en ied th e m o ti o n . A zu b u k o fil ed a ti m elyn o ti ce o f a p p ea l from that o rde r. W e r evi ew the deni al of a Rul e 60( b) m ot i on foran abus e of di s cr et i on. See C ol t ec I ndus . v. H obgood, 280 F. 3d 262, 269 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . R ul e 60( b) “pr ovi des for extr aor di naryr el i ef a nd m ayonl ybe i nvoked upon a s how i ng of exc ept i onal ci r cumst ance s . ” M ayberr yv. M ar oney , 529 F. 2d 332, 335 ( 3d C i r . 1976) . T he D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s di s m i s s al of A zubuko’ s s ui tw as ent i r el yappr opr i at e. A di s tr i ctcourthas the author i tyt o di s m i s s a s ui ts ua s pont e forfai l ur e t o pr os ecut e byvi r tue of i t s i nher ent p o w e rs a n d u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 4 1 (b ). S e e L in k v . W a b a s h R .R . C o .,3

370 U . S. 626, 630- 31 ( 1962) . Such a di s m i s s al i s deemed t o be an a dj udi cat i on on the m er i t s , barr i ng anyfur theract i on betw een the part i es . See Landon v. H unt , 977 F. 2d 829, 8 3 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 2 ). O rd in a rilya d istric t co u rt is re q u ire d to c o n sid e r a n d b a lan c e six fa ctors e n u m era ted in P o u li s v . S tat e F arm F ir e & C asu altyC o . , 7 4 7 F . 2 d 8 6 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 4 ), w h en d ec iding , su a sp o n te, to u se d ism issal as a sa n cti o n . W h en a li ti g an t’ s c o n d u c t m a k e s a d

ju d ica tio n o f

th e c a se im p o ss ib le, h o w e v e r, su c h b a lan c in g u n d e r P o u lis i s unn ecessary . S ee G uy er v. B eard, 90 7 F . 2d 14 24 , 14 29 -30 (3d C i r. 19 90 ); see al so Spai n v. G al l egos , 26 F. 3d 439, 454- 55 ( 3d C i r . 1994) . W e fi nd thatthi s i s s uch a c as e, as A zub uk o’s i nit i al fi l i ng provided n o b asi s for the d i stri ctcou rtt o p roceed w i th h i s case n o r f o r a n o p p o sin g p a rtyto re sp o n d to h is a lleg a tio n s. A z u b u k o th e n f a iled to c o m p ly w i th an expl i ci tor dert o m ake hi s al l egat i ons pl ai n byfi l i ng an amended compl ai nt . Such f a c ts w a rra n ted th e sa n c tio n o f th e D istric t C o u rt’s d ism iss a l. In su m , b e c a u se A z u b u k o ’s a p p e a l lac k s a rg u a b le le g a l m e rit, w e w ill d ism iss it p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B )(i ).