2010 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 7-26-2010 

# V ale nt ine Andel a v

. Ame ric an As so c for C ance r Rese 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 . 10-1468

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a nova 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 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " V ale nt ine Ande l a v

. Ame r ica n As s oc for C a nc e r Re s e " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 887. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/887BL D- 1 8 0 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. 10- 1468

___________ V A L E N T IN E B A N D E L A , C A N C E R -A F R IC A ; CA NC ER- AFRI CA LLC

v. T HE AM E RI CA N AS S OC I AT I ON F OR CANCER RE S EARCH V A L E N T IN E B . A N D E L A , d /b / a CA NC E R- AF RI CA , A ppel l ant

____________________________________ 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 E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 09- cv- 02487) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ohn P. Ful l am

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on 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

A pr i l 29, 2010 B efor e: M cK E E , C hi ef J udge, R E N D E L L and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: J ul y26, 2010)

_________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_________2

P E R C UR I AM V al ent i ne B . A ndel a appe al s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng j udgm enton t he pl eadi ngs t o defe ndantT he A m er i can A s s oci at i on forC ance rR es ear ch, and a s ubs equent o rd e r d e n y in g re c o n s id e ra tio n . W e h a v e a p p e lla te ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . B eca us e thi s appea l pr es ent s “no 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 t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm ent . 3d C i r . I O P C h. 10. 6 and L. A . R . 27. 4. I. I n h i s a me n d e d c o mp l a i n t , An d e l a e x p l a i n e d t h a th e f i l e d t h i s p r o s e , i n f

o r ma pauper i s “ac t i on foractual damages , s t atut or ydamages , puni t i ve damages , i nj unct i ve rel i ef, at t orneyfees, and t he co stof p ursui ng t his act i on againstt he d efen dan tfor gross der el i ct i on of duty ; coer ci on, fr aud and c ons pi r acyt o defr aud; i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of emot i onal di s t r es s ; vi ol at i on of the Lanham A ct§ 43( a) , 15 U . S. C . § 1125( a) [; ] and[] vi ol at i on of the Sherm an A nt i t rus tA ct , 15 U . S. C . §§ 1, 2. ” A m . C om pl . ¶ 1. A ndel a, a s el f- des cr i bed phy s i ci an/ s ci ent i s ts peci al i zi ng i n canc err es ear ch, c h a llen g e s d e f

e n d a n t’s p u b lica tio n o f

a re se a rc h p a p e r in its jo u rn a l C ancerR es ear ch . A ccor di ng t o A ndel a, he col l abor at ed w i t h s ever al i ndi vi dual s t o pr epar e a pa peron re s e a rc h th a t th e yh a d p e rf o rm e d re g a rd in g th e E p s te in B a rr V iru s a n d lym p h o m a s . A n d e la a lle g e s th a t h e w a s th e p ri m a ry a u th o r o f th e p a p e r a s o ri g in a lly c o n c e iv e d . H ow ever , i n A ugus t2007, “D r [. ] A ndel a’ s or i gi nal m anus cr i pton E ps t ei n B arrV i rus M i croR N A s w as pl agiar i zed, fal si fi ed an d sub m i t t ed [b yA nd el a’s form er col l abo rat ors]

### A n d ela an dd ef en d ant are alleg ed ly

P enn sylv an ia citizen s. 1 3 f o r p u b lica tio n to th e jo u rn a l C ancerR es ear ch .” A m . C o m p l. ¶ 3 9 . “W ith th e c o m p licity of the edi t or s of C ancerR es ear ch , t he manusc r i ptw as acc ept ed forpubl i cat i on, ” and the “pl agi ar i zed a nd fal s i fi ed manusc r i ptw as s ubs equent l ypubl i s hed i n M ar ch of 2008. ” I d. ¶¶ 40, 41. A ndel a s eeks t o hol d defe ndantl i abl e unders t at e and f eder al l aw s for publ i s hi ng t he pape ras s ubm i t t ed byhi s for m ercol l abor at or s . Fur t her , he cha l l enges d e f e n d a n t’ s re f

u s a l to p u b lis h h is “ le tte r t o th e e d ito r” c ri tiq u in g th e p a p e r. D efe ndantfi l ed a mot i on forj udgm enton t he pl eadi ngs aft erans w er i ng t he am en d ed co m p lai n t. A n d ela f il ed a m o ti o n fo r sum m aryjud g m en t. T h e D istri ct C o u rt not ed i t s l ack of

di ver s i tyj ur i s di ct i on, and conc l uded thatA ndel a’ s t w o cl ai m s under 1 f e d e ra l law (th e L a n h a m A c t an d th e S h e rm a n A c t) m u st b e d ism iss e d . B e c a u se A n d e la conce ded thatt he Lanham A ctdoes notr eac h “comm uni cat i ve pr oduct s ” s uch as books or ar t i cl es , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed thatcl ai m . T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d t hatt he Sher m an A ctcl ai m s fai l beca us e A ndel a di d notdefi ne the r el evantm arketordes cr i be the at t empt ed monopol i zat i on. M or eover , t he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatA ndel a l acks s t andi ng undert he ant i t rus tl aw s beca us e thos e l aw s ai m t o pr ot ectcompet i t i on, not compet i t or s , and the al l eged i nj ur yi s per s onal t o A ndel a and notof the type thatt he ant i t rus tl aw s w er e i nt ended t o r edr es s . T he D i s t r i ctC our tt hus gr ant ed j udgm enton t he pl eadi ngs , di s m i s s ed the tw o fede r al cl ai m s w i t h pr ej udi ce, and di s m i s s ed the r emai ni ng c laim s u n d e r sta te la w w ith o u t p re ju d ice . A f

ter th e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied A n d e la’ s tim e ly

### A s a p relimin ary m atter, in so f

ar as A n d ela h as ap p ealedo nb eh alf o f th e entity 2 

### re ference d in the ca

ption as “ Cancer -Afric a, ” And el a has no t s ho wnthat he is authoriz ed t o r e pr e s e nt

that e nt i ty i n thi s Court . Se e Si m

br aw, I nc . v. Uni t e d St at e s , 367 F. 2d 373, 37 4-75 (3d C ir . 196 6). Con se qu ently , the appealis dismis se d as t o C ance r- Af ri ca . A lth o u g hA n d ela ask edth e D istrict C o urt to co n stru e h is L anh am A ct claim

as a 3 

### “defam ation cla im ,”the Dis tric t Court did n ot er

r i n h olding that

it “nee d n ot re ac h that i s s ue . ” Gi ve n Ande l a ’ s fa i lur e t o s t at e avi abl e c l a i m for r e l i e f unde r

fe de r a ll aw, the D istrict C o urt actedw ith inits d iscretio nind ismissin g all sup p lem ental state lawclaim s, i nc ludi ng any

pr opos e d de fam at i on c l a i m , wi thout pr e judi c e . Se e 28 U. S. C. 4 f iled m o tio n f

o r re c o n sid e ra tio n , A n d e la tim e lyf iled th is a p p e a l. II. O urr evi ew i s pl enaryof a de ci s i on t o gr anta mot i on forj udgm enton t he p lea d in g s. R o se n a u v . U n if u n d C o rp ., 5 3 9 F .3 d 2 1 8 , 2 2 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). “‘ U n d e r R u le 12( c) , j udgm entw i l l notbe gr ant ed unl es s t he movantcl ear l yes t abl i s hes t hatno m at er i al is s u e o f f a c t r e m a in s to b e re s o lv e d a n d th a t h e is e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w . I n r evi ew i ng t he gr antof a Rul e 12( c) m ot i on, w e mustvi ew t he fa ct s pr es ent ed i n t he pl eadi ngs and the i nfer ence s t o be dr aw n t her efr om i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he nonm ovi ng par t y . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng J abl ons ki v. Pan A m . W or l d A i r w ay s , I nc. , 863 F. 2d 289, 290- 91 ( 3d C i r . 1988) ) . W e r evi ew t he deni al of a mot i on forr econs i der at i on for ab u se o f d iscreti o n . M ax ’s S ea fo o d C af é v . Q u interos, 17 6 F . 3 d 6 6 9 , 6 7 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). A fter a c are fu l r ev iew o f th e re co rd, w e d iscern n o erro r i n the D istri ct C o u rt ’s a n a ly sis . A n d e la c o n c e d e d b e f o re th e D istric t C o u rt th a t th e L a n h a m A c t cla im m u st f a il 2 beca us e the Lanham A ctdoes notappl yt o comm uni cat i ve pr oduct s . See D as t arC orp. v. T w ent i eth C entur yFox Fi l m C orp. , 539 U . S. 23, 36- 37 ( 2003) . I n hi s r es pons e t o t he 3

### § 1 36 7(c) (3); Hedg es v. Mu sc o, 20 4 F .3d 1 09 , 123 (3d C ir . 200 0). 5 s ubm i s s i on of thi s appea l forpos s i bl e s um m arydi s pos i t i on, A ndel a foc us es s ol el yupon hi s Sher m an A ctcl ai m s . H e ar gues t hatdefe ndantengage d i n ant i t rus tact i vi t yby “cons pi r i ng i n t he unr eas onabl e r es t r ai ntof [A ndel a] ’ s m arketact i vi t y , ” and byent er i ng into a n all eg ed co n sp ir ac yto co n d u ct a “ sh am p ee r rev iew ” o f th e p u b li sh ed p ap er. “A pl ai nt i ff a s s er t i ng a Sect i on 1 cl ai m . . . m us tal l ege f ourel ement s : ( 1) conce r t ed act i on byt he def

endant s ; ( 2) t hatpr oduced a nt i - compet i t i ve ef fec t s w i t hi n t he r el evant p ro d u c t an d g e o g ra p h ic m a rk e ts; (3 ) th a t th e c o n c e rte d a c tio n s w e re ill e g a l; an d (4 ) th a t it w as i nj ur ed as a pr oxi m at e r es ul tof the conc er t ed ac t i on. ” H ow ar d H es s D ent al L abs . v. D ent s pl yI nt ’ l , – F. 3d –, 2010 U . S. A pp. L E X I S 7894, at*30 ( 3d C i r . A pr . 16, 2010) ( quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o R os s i v. St andar d R oofi ng, I nc. , 156 F. 3d 452, 464 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( pl ai nt i ff ha s bur den t o s how “adve r s e, ant i - compet i t i ve ef fec t s w i t hi n t he r el evantpr oductand geogr aphi c mar ket s ”) . H er e, A ndel a fa i l ed, i nt eral i a, t o defi ne the re le v a n t m a rk e t. H is a lle g a tio n th a t “ [ t] h e re le v a n t g e o g ra p h ic m a rk e tp la c e is th e w o rl d ,” A m . C om pl . ¶ 90, i s i ns uffi ci ent . See, e. g. , Q ueen Ci t yPi zza v. D om i no’ s Pi zza , 124 F. 3d 430, 436 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( “W her e the pl ai nt i ff f ai l s t o defi ne i t s pr opos ed r el evant m arketw i t h r efe r ence t o t he rul e of r eas onabl e i nt er change abi l i t yand cr os s - el as t i ci t yof d e m a n d , o r a lleg e s a p ro p o se d re lev a n t m a rk e t th a t cle a rlyd o e s n o t en c o m p a ss a ll in ter c h a n g e a b le s u b stitu te p ro d u c ts e v e n w h e n a ll fa c tu a l in f e re n c e s a re g ra n ted in pl ai nt i ff’ s favor , t he r el evantm arketi s l egal l yi ns uffi ci entand a mot i on t o di s m i s s m aybe

### Ande l am a i nt a i ns that the r e l e vant

m arke t and pr oduc t

ar e the “ worl dwi de 4 

### m ark et f o r th e inv estig atio no f

th e cau ses an dtreatm ent o f can cer.” A n d ela d o es n o t, howe ve r , a de quat e l y

de fi ne thi s pur

port e d m arke t

or pr oduc t . Mor e ove r , hi s a l l e gat i ons do no t r ai seany

re as on ableinfere nce at a llthat defend ant’ s a ll eged actions “produ ce d ant i - c om pe t i t i ve e ffe c t s ” wi thi n the pur port e d m arke t . Howar d He s s De nt a lLabs . , 2010 U. S. App. LEXI S 7894, at *30. 6 g ran ted.”). 4 T o s t at e a c l ai m forat t empt ed monopol i zat i on under§ 2 of the Sherm an A ct , “a pl ai nt i ff mustal l ege ( 1) t hatt he def endanthas engage d i n pr edat or yorant i compet i t i ve conductw i t h ( 2) a s peci fi c i nt entt o m onopol i ze a nd ( 3) a dange r ous pr obabi l i t yof achi evi ng m onopol ypow er . ” C r os s r oads C ogener at i on C orp. v. O r ange & R ockl and U ti ls. , 1 5 9 F . 3 d 1 2 9 , 1 4 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) (qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). T h e D istri ct C o u rt w as corr ectt hatA ndel a fa i l s t o s t at e a c l ai m under§ 2. A ndel a s ugges t s t hatdefe ndant at t empt ed t o excl ude the ent i r e cont i nentof A fr i ca f r om t he w or l dw i de mar ketfort he in v e stig a tio n o f

th e c a u se s a n d tre a tm e n t o f c a n c e r. A m o n g o th e r sh o rtc o m in g s, A n d e la has not“al l ege[ d] fac t s s uffi ci entt o r ai s e a r i ghtt o r el i ef a bove the s pecul at i ve l evel . ” B roa d co m C o rp. v. Q u alco m m Inc . , 5 0 1 F . 3 d 2 9 7 , 3 1 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ); see also id. ( “[ I]n t he cont extof a § 2 c l ai m forat t empt ed monopol i zat i on, . . . a compl ai ntm us tal l ege so m e th in g m o re th a n m e re m a rk e t sh a re , su c h a s th e stre n g th o f c o m p e tit io n , p ro b a b le devel opm entof the i ndus t r y , t he barr i er s t o entr y , t he natur e of the ant i compet i t i ve co n d u ct, an d the e last ici tyo f c o n su m er d em an d . ”) (q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). M o re o v e r, to sh o w a c o g n iza b le a n titru st in ju ry , “p lain tiff

m u st p ro v e th a t it

### Ande l a ’ s r e l i anc e upon Ange l i c o v. Le hi gh Va l l e y Hos pi t a l , 184 F. 3d 268 ( 3d 5 

### Ci r . 1999) , i s mi s pl a c e d. I n Ange l i c o, ac ar di othor a c i c s urge on s ue d thr e e hos pi t a l s and tw o p ractice g ro up s un d er § § 1 an d2 o f th e S h erm anA ct, alleg in g th at th ey co n sp iredto e l i mi nat e hi m

a s ac om pe t i t or , e nga ge d i n e xc lus i ve de a l i ng and agr oup boyc ott , and c ontr ol l e d am onopol y

s har e of the m arke t . Thi s Court he l d that the doc t or

ha d s t andi ng t o r a i s e hi s c l a i m s be c aus e , i nt e r a l i a , “ the i njury

hes uffe r e d, whe n s hut

out of com peti ti onfo r antic om

peti ti ve re as on s, is indeed amon g tho sethe antit rust laws were de s i gne d t o pr e ve nt . ” I d. at 274. He r e , Ande l ai s not i n c om pe t i t i on wi th de fe ndant , and the r e i s s i m

pl y no r e a s onabl e i nfe r e nc e t o be dr awn fr om the a l l e gat i ons that

de fe ndant soug ht to exclud e And el a from com peti ti onin a r el evant m ar ketpla ce . 7 s uffe r ed an i nj ur yt hat( 1) i s of the type the ant i t rus tl aw s w er e i nt ended t o pr eventand ( 2) fl ows f r om t ha tw hi c h mak e s de fe nd a nt s ’ a c t s un l a w fu l . ” A t l a nt i c Ri c hf i e l d Co. v. U SA P etroleu m C o . , 4 9 5 U . S . 3 2 8 , 3 4 9 (19 9 0 ) (qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). T h e D istri ct C o u rt w a s c o rre c t th a t A n d e la’ s a lleg e d in ju ryf ro m p u b lica tio n o f

th e p a p e r a n d th e re f

u sa l to p u b l i s h h i s l e t t e rt o t h e e d i t o ri s p e r s o n a l t o h i m a n d n o to f t h e t yp e t h e a n t i t ru s tl a ws w er e i nt ended t o r edr es s . See B ar t on & Pi t t i nos , I nc. v. Sm i t hK l i ne B eec ham C orp. , 118 F . 3 d 1 7 8 , 1 8 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) (discu ssing stan d ing u n d er a n ti tru st l aw s). 5 A ndel a ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed byfai l i ng t o cons t rue hi s s t at e l aw f ra u d a n d c o n s p ir a c yc la im s to a s s e rt c la im s u n d e r f e d e ra l la w , p ri m a ri ly a R IC O c la im . W hi l e a c our tgener al l ym us tcons t rue a pr o s e compl ai ntl i ber al l y , s ee, e. g. , E r i cks on v. P a rd u s, 5 5 1 U .S . 8 9 , 9 4 (2 0 0 7 ) (p e r c u ria m ), th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in re f u sin g to addr es s l egal t heor i es t hatA ndel a fa i l ed t o pl ead i n hi s amended compl ai nt . A l t hough p ro c e e d in g p ro se , A n d e la, a d o c to r, ex h ib ited m o re th a n e n o u g h k n o w led g e o f th e law to expec tt hathe w oul d fol l ow t he Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e and f i l e a mot i on for

### A R ICO cla im un der 18 U .S.C. § 19 62 (c ) has fo ur el em ents : “ (1) the exis te nce 6 

### of an e nt e r

pri s e a ffe c t i ng i nt e r s t at e c omm e r c e ; ( 2) that the de fe ndant

wa s e m pl oye d by or a s s oc i at e d wi th the e nt e r

pri s e ; ( 3) that

the de fe ndant

part i c ipat e d, e i the r

di r e c t l y or i ndi r e c t l y , i n the c onduc t or the a ffa i r s of the e nt e r

pri s e ; and ( 4) that

the de fe ndant part i c ipat e d throu ghapatt e rn o f r a c ke t e e ri nga c t i vi ty that i nc lud e d at

l e a s t two ra cket ee ri ng ac ts .”Annu ll i v. Panikkar, 20 0 F .3d 1 89 , 198 (3d C ir . 199 9). Am on g o ther th i n g s , A n d e l af

a i l s t o a l l e g e ap att e rno f

r a c k e t e e ri n g a c t i v i ty. 8 l eave t o amend i f he w i s hed t o add new cl ai m s t o t he s ui t . T he D i s t r i ctC our tw as not o b lig a ted to d ra f

t a s e c o n d a m e n d e d c o m p lain t f o r A n d e la, a n d w e c a n n o t co n c lu d e th a t it erred in f ail ing to ref

ash ion A n d ela’s leg al th eo ri es. In a d d it ion , ev en if t h e D istri ct C o u rt h a d c o n stru e d A n d e la’ s a m e n d e d c o m p lain t as ra isin g a R IC O c laim , itis c lea r th a t h is al l egat i ons fai l t o s t at e a vi abl e cl ai m forr el i ef. 6 As n o t e d , t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r td i s mi s s e d t h e La n h a m Ac ta n d S h e r ma n Ac tc l a i ms w i t h pr ej udi ce. T hi s C our thas hel d t hat , w hen a c om pl ai nti s vul ner abl e t o di s m i s s al on t he pl eadi ngs , “a di s t r i ctcour tm us tperm i ta cur at i ve amendm ent , unl es s an amendm ent w oul d be i nequi t abl e orfut i l e. ” Phi l l i ps v. C ount yof A l l egheny , 515 F. 3d 224, 236 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . W hi l e the D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notaff or d A ndel a l eave t o amend, i ti s cl eart hat a m e n d m e n t w o u ld b e f

u til e . A n d e la e f

f e c tiv e lyc o n c e d e d th a t th e L a n h a m A c t cla im coul d notbe cur ed thr ough amendm ent , and he now her e i ndi cat ed i n hi s var i ous pl eadi ngs , i ncl udi ng hi s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entand mot i on forr econs i der at i on, that h e c o u ld p rov ide a d d it ion al fa ctua l sup p o rtfo r th e S h erm an A ct claim s. W e a re s at i s fi ed on the r ecor d her e thatl eave t o amend t he fe der al cl ai m s w as notr equi r ed. F in a lly, th e D is tr ic t C o u rt d id n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n in d e n y in g re c o n s id e ra tio n .

### A n d ela’s requ est f o r ano rd er “aw ard in g all co sts an dd am ag es asso ciatedw ith 7 

### th is ap p eal” is d en ied . 9 “[A ] j udgm entm aybe al t er ed oramended i f the part ys eeki ng r econs i der at i on s how s at l e a s to n e o f

t h e f o l l o wi n g g r o u n d s : ( 1 ) a n i n t e r v e n i n g c h a n g e i n t h e c o n t r o l l i n g l a w; ( 2) t he ava i l abi l i t yof new evi dence t hatw as notavai l abl e w hen the courtgr ant ed the [di s pos i t i ve] m ot i on . . . ; or( 3) t he nee d t o corr ecta cl earerr orof l aw orfac tort o pr event m ani fes ti nj us t i ce. ” M ax’ s Seafood Café, 176 F. 3d at677. W e agr ee w i t h defe ndantt hat A ndel a’ s r econs i der at i on m ot i on es s ent i al l yr ear gued mat t er s t hatw er e pr evi ous l yr ai s ed and cons i der ed, and as s uch w as pr oper l ydeni ed. Fur t her , i nas m uch as A ndel a cl ai m ed t o have “ new evi dence ” thathe w i s hed t o pr es ent , he di d notr el yupon evi dence t hatw as un avail able t o h i m pri or t o en t ryof the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s j ud gm ent. S ee H ow ard H ess D ent al L abs . , 2010 U . S. A pp. L E X I S 7894, at*27 ( expl ai ni ng t hat“new evi dence ” i n t he re c o n sid e ra tio n c o n tex t re f e rs s o lelyto “ e v id e n c e th a t a p a rtyc o u ld n o t ea rlier su b m it t o the c o u rtb ec au se th at ev iden ce w as n o t prev iou slyav ail ab le”). III . F o r th ese rea so n s, w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er. 7