2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-26-2011

Adefumi v. City of Philadelphia

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-2107

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

"Adefumi v. City of Philadelphia" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 472.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/472
1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2107

___________

OLANIYAN ADEFUMI,

Appellant

v.

THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 2-09-cv-00586)

District Judge: Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

September 23, 2011

Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and WEIS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: September 26, 2011)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM.

Olaniyan Adefumi appeals District Court orders dismissing his complaint 

and denying his motion for reconsideration. We will affirm.

As the parties are familiar with the facts of this lawsuit (and Adefumi’s two related 
2

lawsuits), we will not recapitulate them here. Having reviewed the record,1

With regard to privity, we requested that the parties brief the issue, and we 

are convinced by the appellee’s argument that it and the Free Library should be construed 

we are 

satisfied that the District Court correctly granted the motion to dismiss in favor of the 

City of Philadelphia on the grounds of claim preclusion. See generally Adefumi v. City 

of Phila., No. 09-586, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34238 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 29, 2011). To 

properly invoke claim preclusion, “the defendant must show there has been (1) a final 

judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving (2) the same parties or their privies; and 

(3) a subsequent suit based on the same causes of action.” Sheridan v. NGK Metals 

Corp., 609 F.3d 239, 260 (3d Cir. 2010) (internal quotations, citations omitted). We take 

“a broad view of what constitutes identity of causes of action,” analyzing “(1) whether 

the acts complained of and the demand for relief are the same . . . ; (2) whether the theory 

of recovery is the same; (3) whether the witnesses and documents necessary at trial are 

the same . . . ; and (4) whether the material facts alleged are the same.” United States v. 

Athlone Industries, Inc., 746 F.2d 977, 984 (3d Cir. 1984). Here, the “same claim” test is 

easily satisfied, as is the “final judgment on the merits” element. 

 1 “We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 [and] [w]e review a 

district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss de novo.” Beidleman v. Stroh Brewery Co., 

182 F.3d 225, 229 (3d Cir. 1999). Denial of a motion for reconsideration is reviewed for 

abuse of discretion. See Confer v. Custom Engineering Co., 952 F.2d 41, 43 (3d Cir. 

1991). To the extent that Adefumi’s original complaint was, in actuality, a motion to 

reopen his first lawsuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, we review the District 

Court’s disposition for abuse of discretion. Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d 244, 

251 (3d Cir. 2008).
3

as parties in privity for the purposes of claim preclusion. Privity has “traditionally been 

understood as referring to the existence of a substantive legal relationship, such as by 

contract, from which it was deemed appropriate to bind one of the contracting parties to

the results of the other party’s participation in litigation.” Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. 

v. George V. Hamilton, Inc., 571 F.3d 299, 311 (3d Cir. 2009). The multiple connections 

between the City of Philadelphia and its Free Library fall within the traditional definition 

of privity; for example, the primary budgeting source for the Free Library is city funds,2

Finally, should Adefumi’s complaint be read as attempting to reopen his 

first case through the use of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, we agree with the

District Court that relief under 60(b)(2)–(3) is time-barred, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1); 

with regard to 60(b)(6), Adefumi has not shown the “extraordinary circumstances” that 

would justify granting a 60(b)(6) motion, if such relief were available. Gonzalez v. 

Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005). Nor is Rule 60(d) an option, as there is no evident 

“grave miscarriage of justice,” see Mitchell v. Rees, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 U.S. App. 

LEXIS 13309, at *4–6 (6th Cir. 2011, No. 09-5570), or fraud on the court. 

and the Board of Trustees of the Free Library is governed by the City’s home-rule 

charter. See 351 Pa. Code §§ 3.3-802, 4.4-800. In the present case, this alignment of 

interests suggests that a judgment in favor of one party should preclude a renewed suit 

arising from the same facts against the other. 

 2 See, e.g., Free Library of Phila. Annual Report, 2008 Fiscal Year 10 (2008), available 

at http://www.freelibrary.org/annualreport/annualreport08/annualreport2008.pdf.
4

In sum, the District Court correctly decided this case, and therefore did not 

abuse its discretion in declining to reconsider the outcome. We will affirm its orders.