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 10-6-2009 

# Nath aniel L a

wson v . Natl C ont Ins C o 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 . 09-2239

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 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 " Nath aniel L a

ws on v . Natl C ont In s C o " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 506. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/506A L D - 322 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. 09- 2239

___________ NAT HANI E L L AWS ON; NAT E ’ S T RA NS P OR T AT I ON

v . NAT I ONAL CO NT I NE NT AL - P RO GR E S S I VE I NS UR ANC E CO M P ANY NAT HANI E L L AWS ON,

A p p e l l a n t

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o rth e D i s tr i c to f

N e w J e r s e y ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 2: 08- cv- 03136) D i stri ctJudg e: H on orabl e Jose L . L i nares

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e D i s m i s s al D ue t o a J ur i s di ct i onal D efe ct a n d S u m m a ry A c tio n P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 Sept ember24, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , FU E N T E S and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed O ct ober06, 2009 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM N atha n iel L aw so n , p roc ee d ing p ro se , ap p ea ls th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord ersIn th e c o m p lain t f iled in D istric t C o u rt a n d th e n o tice o f a p p e a l f iled in th is C o u rt, 1 N ate’s T ran sp o rt ati o n w as in co rrectl yp lead ed as a p lai n ti ff an d an ap p ell an t. H o w ev er, N at e’s T ransport at i on , Inc. i s a corporat i on and therefore cann ot pr oceed as a pro se lit ig a n t. S e e R o w lan d v . C a lifo rn ia M e n ’s C o lo n y , 5 0 6 U .S . 1 9 4 , 2 0 1 -0 2 (1 9 9 3 ). A n d , in addi t i on, L aw s on, as a non- att orney , m aynotr epr es entthe i nt er es t s of a c orpor at i on i n a f e d e ra l c o u rt . S e e O s e i- A f ri y ie v . M e d . C o ll. o f

P a ., 9 3 7 F .2 d 8 7 6 , 8 8 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). 2 di s m i s s i ng hi s cas e and de ny i ng hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on, r es pect i vel y . B eca us e the appea l does notpr es enta s ubs t ant i al ques t i on, w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s or der s . See 3d C i r . L A R 27. 4; 3d C i r . I . O . P. 10. 6. I. I n O ct ober2006, L aw s on fi l ed a c ouns el ed compl ai ntagai ns tN at i onal C ont i nent al I ns ur ance C om pany( “N at i onal C ont i nent al ”) i n N ew J er s eySuper i orC our t , al l egi ng t hat N ati o n al C o n ti n en tal w ron g fu ll yterm inated an insu ran ce p o li cyh eld b yN ate’s T r ans por t at i on, a bus companyow ned byL aw s on. I n Sept ember2007, the Super i or 1 C our tgr ant ed N at i onal C ont i nent al ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s the ca s e. I n J une 2008, L aw s on fi l ed a pr o s e compl ai ntagai ns tN at i onal C ont i nent al i n the Di s tr i c tCo u r to f

Ne w J e r s e y , r e - a l l e g i n g h i s b r e a c h o f c o n tr a c tc l a i m a n d r a i s i n g c l a i ms underthe Fi r s t , Four th, E i ghth, and Four t eenth A m endment s , as w el l as cl ai m s pur s uant t o al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of 42 U . S. C . §§ 1881, 1855, 1982, 1986 and 1988. N at i onal C ont i nent al m oved t o di s m i s s L aw s on’ s compl ai nt , and on J anuary26, 2009, the D i s tr i ct C our tgr ant ed the mot i on, di s m i s s i ng the ca s e w i th pr ej udi ce. T he courtconcl uded that ( 1) L aw s on’ s compl ai ntfai l ed t o al l ege a nyfac t s t o s uppor thi s fede r al and cons t i tut i onalA ft erfi l i ng hi s or i gi nal m ot i on forr econs i der at i on on J anuary28, L aw s on fi l ed 2 addi t i onal m ot i ons forr econs i der at i on on February13, February20, M ar ch 4, and M ar ch 31. N one of thes e mot i ons w er e t i m el yfi l ed. See Fed. R . A pp. P. 59( e) . T he D i s tr i ct C our tnot ed i n i t s February24, 2009 or der , thati tcons i der ed both L aw s on’ s or i gi nal m o tio n f o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n a n d h is F e b ru a ry 1 3 m o tio n . 3 c la im s ; a n d (2 ) h is b re a c h o f c o n tr a c t c la im w a s p re c lu d e d b yth e d o c tr in e o f re s ju d ic a ta . O n February24, 2009, the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed Law s on’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on. 2 L a w so n n o w a p p e a ls th e D istric t C o u rt’s J a n u a ry2 6 a n d F e b ru a ry2 4 o rd e rs to th is C o u rt. II. W e fi r s tm us texami ne w hetherw e have j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derthi s appea l b e c a u se th e n o tice o f

a p p e a l w a s n o t f

iled u n til A p ril 2 3 , 2 0 0 9 . A p a rtyin a c iv il ca se is r e q u i r e d t o f

i l e a n o t i c e o f

a p p e a l wi th i n th i rtyd a y s o f e n tryo f th e j u d g me n t . F e d . R. A pp. P. 4( a) ( 1) ( A ) . G ener al l y , a j udgm entcannotbe ent er ed unl es s i ti s s etouti n a se p a ra te d o c u m e n t. F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 8 (c )(2 )(A ). A ju d g m e n t is tre a ted a s a se p a ra te documenti f i t : ( 1) i s s el f cont ai ned and s epar at e fr om the opi ni on, ( 2) not es the r el i ef gr ant ed, and ( 3) om i t s ( oratl eas ts ubs t ant i al l yom i t s ) the tr i al court ’ s r eas ons for d ispo sing o f th e c lai m s. In re C en d an t C o rp. S ec . L it ig., 4 5 4 F . 3 d 2 3 5 , 2 4 1 (3d C ir . 2006) . T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s J anuary26, 2009 or der , w hi ch cont ai ns thr ee pa ges des cr i bi ng the r eas ons forthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al , fai l s t o s at i s fythe thi r d cr i t er i on - om issi o n o f re aso n ing . A s su ch , p u rsua n t t o F ed . R . A p p . P . 4 (a)(7)(A )(i i) , the J an u ary 26 or derw as notcons i der ed ent er ed for150 day s . B eca us e Law s on fi l ed hi s not i ce of a p p e a l e i g h ty- s e v e n d a ys a f t e rth e J a n u a ry 2 6 o r d e r , h i s a p p e a l i s t i m e l y.4 III . H avi ng det erm i ned thatthe appe al i s t i m el y , w e now turn t o the mer i t s of L aw s on’ s cl ai m . Sum m aryact i on i s w arr ant ed w hen no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on i s pr es ent ed o n a p p e a l. S e e 3 d C ir . L .A .R . 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 . L aw s on appea l s fr om the or derof the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s i ng hi s compl ai nt u n d e r F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 2 (b )(6 ). T o su rv iv e a m o tio n to d ism iss , a c o m p lain t m u st c o n tain su f f icie n t f a c tu a l m a tter, a c c e p ted a s tru e , to “ sta te a c laim to re lief th a t is p lau sib le o n its fac e. ” B el l A t l ant i c C orp. v. T w om bl y , 550 U . S. 544, 570 ( 2007) . “A cl ai m has fac i al pl aus i bi l i tyw hen the pl ai nt i ff pl eads fac tual cont entthatal l ow s the courtt o dr aw the r eas onabl e i nfer ence thatthe def endanti s l i abl e forthe mi s conductal l eged. ” A s hcr oftv. Iq b a l, 12 9 S . C t. 19 3 7 , 1 9 4 9 (2 0 0 9 ). T h e a ss u m p tio n o f tru th d o e s n o t ap p ly , h o w e v e r, to l egal concl us i ons couche d as fac tual al l egat i ons ort o “[t ] hr eadba r e r eci t al s of the el ement s of a c aus e of a ct i on, s uppor t ed bym er e conc l us orys t at ement s . ” I d. W e a g re e w ith th e D istric t C o u rt th a t L a w so n ’s c o m p lain t f a ils to a lleg e a n yf

a c ts t o s uppor thi s fede r al orcons t i tut i onal cl ai m s . W hi l e Law s on al l eges thatN at i onal I ns ur ance deni ed N at e’ s T r ans por t at i on i ns ur ance cover age a nd added a pr emi um w i t hout r eas on, the compl ai ntdoes notcont ai n anyfac t s thatw oul d al l ow one t o r eas onabl yi nfer that it s ac ti o n s v iolated f ed era l or co n sti tuti o n al l aw . L aw so n ’s co n clus o ryall eg ati o n s are i ns uffi ci entt o pl aus i bl ydemonstr at e thatN at i onal I ns ur ance vi ol at ed Law s on’ s ci vi l or cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . See I qbal , 129 S. C t . at1949.A s forL aw s on’ s br eac h of contr actcl ai m , w e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthat

thi s cl ai m i s barr ed byr es j udi cat a. R es j udi cat a bar s a s econd s ui tw her e “ther e has been (1 ) a f in a l ju d g m e n t o n th e m e rits in a p rio r su it i n v o lv in g (2 ) th e sa m e p a rties o r th e ir pr i vi es and ( 3) a s ubs equents ui tbas ed on the s ame caus e of a ct i on. ” Lubri zol C orp. v. E xxon C orp. , 929 F. 2d 960, 963 ( 3d C i r . 1991) . H er e, al l thr ee r equi r ement s ar e met , as the N ew J er s eySuper i orC our tent er ed a va l i d, fi nal j udgm enton the mer i t s i n Sept ember 2 0 0 7 , an d th e p a rties a n d th e c a u se o f a c tio n in th a t ca se w e re id e n tica l to th o se in th is cas e. W e have hel d t hatw hen a c om pl ai nti s di s m i s s ed forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w h ich re lief

m a yb e g ra n ted , a p lain tiff sh o u ld b e g ra n ted th e o p p o rtu n ityto a m e n d h is c o m p lain t u n les s a m e n d m e n t w o u ld b e in e q u itab le o r f u til e . G ra y so n v . M a yv iew S tate H os p. , 293 F. 3d 103, 106 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . G i ven that , as di s cus s ed above , L aw s on p rev iou slyli ti g ated this brea ch o f c o n tr ac t cl aim in N ew Jerse yS u p erior C o u rtan d there are no facts t o infer that N at i on al Insur ance v i olat ed h i s federal or const i tuti on al ri gh t s, w e c o n c lu d e th a t itw o u ld h a v e b e e n f u til e f o r th e D istric t C o u rt to p ro v id e L a w so n w ith le a v e to a m e n d h is c o m p la in t b e f o re g ra n tin g th e m o tio n to d is m is s . In li g h t of

the a b o v e, w e w il l sum m aril yaf firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord ers di s m i s s i ng the compl ai ntand deny i ng L aw s on’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on.

5