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 9-29-2009 

# D aniel T i lli v . Ex xon M obi l C orp 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 . 09-2279

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 author i 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 " D anie l Ti ll i v

. Ex xon M o b i l C orp " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 583. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/583AL D- 3 1 3 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- 2279

___________ D A N IE L T IL L I, A ppel l ant

v. E X X O N -M O B IL C O R P O R A T IO N ; RE X T I L L E RS ON, CE O

____________________________________ 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 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- 01301) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le R o b e rt F . K e lly

____________________________________ 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 P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r 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 ember17, 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: Sept ember29, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM D ani el T i l l i fi l ed a c om pl ai ntal l egi ng t hatappel l ees i l l egal l yr ai s ed the pr i ce of t hei rgas . H e ar gued thatt hi s vi ol at ed the Penns y l vani a C ons um erPr ot ect i on A ctand theT he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d nothave a ddr es s ed the i s s ue of j ur i s di ct i on ort he mer i t s of 1 th e c o m p lain t u n til th e f ili n g f e e h a d b e e n p a id o r th e m o tio n to p ro c e e d in f o rm a p a u p e ris h ad b ee n g ran ted. S inw ell v . S h ap p , 5 3 6 F . 2 d 1 5 , 1 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 7 6 ). 2 I nt er s t at e C om m er ce A ctand i m pl i ed thatappel l ees had enga ged i n pr i ce gougi ng and pr i ce f i xi ng. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the i n form a paupe r i s m ot i on as i ncompl et e and 1 di s m i s s ed the compl ai ntw i t houtpr ej udi ce pur s uantt o Fed. R . C i v. P. 12( h) ( 3) . T i l l i fi l ed a n o tic e o f

a p p e a l. W her e a D i s t r i ctC our thas di s m i s s ed a c om pl ai ntw i t houtpr ej udi ce, t he di s m i s s al i s gener al l ynotappea l abl e under28 U . S. C . § 1291 unl es s t he l i t i gantcannotcur e the defe ctorw her e the l i t i gantdecl ar es an i nt ent i on t o s t and on the compl ai nt , w her eupon the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derbecomes fi nal . B or el l i v. C i t yof R eadi ng, 532 F. 2d 950, 951- 52 ( 3d C i r . 1976) ( percur i am). A ft ert he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed hi s compl ai ntw i t hout pr ej udi ce, T i l l i fi l ed a doc um entent i t l ed “D emand t o R ei ns t at e” i n w hi ch he a r gued that h e d id sta te a ju risd ictio n a l b a sis f o r h is c laim . B e c a u se T ill i h a s c h o se n to sta n d o n h is p lea d in g a s f

iled , w e h a v e ju risd ictio n o v e r th e a p p e a l. B e c a u se T ill i is p ro c e e d in g in f o rm a p a u p e ris o n th is a p p e a l, w e m u st a n a ly z e h is ap p ea l fo r po ssible d ism issal pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). U n d er § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B ), w e m u st d ism iss a n a p p e a l if th e a c tio n (i) is f riv o lo u s o r m a licio u s, (ii) fai l s t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef maybe gr ant ed, or( i i i ) s eeks m onet arydamages f r o m a d e f

e n d a n tw i t h i m m u n i t y.3

O n appea l , T i l l i ar gues t hati nt er s t at e pr i ce gougi ng i s i n vi ol at i on of the Sherm an A c t. In o rd e r to sta te a c laim u n d e r th e S h e rm a n A c t, a p lain tiff m u st a lleg e f

a c ts to s ugges tt hatan unl aw ful agr eementw as m ade. T w om bl yv. B el l A t l ant i c, 550 U . S. 544 ( 2007) . T i l l i has nots t at ed a c l ai m undert he Sherm an A ct ; hi s compl ai ntcons i s t s of co n clus o ryall eg ati o n s o f p ri ce -fixing . T h is i s insu ff ici en t un d er T w o m b ly . M o reo v er, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noterri n decl i ni ng t o exer ci s e s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on overany st at e l aw cl ai m s. F o rt h e a b o v e r e a s o n s , we wi l l d i s mi s s t h e a p p e a l f o rf a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m, pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) . A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on t o t r ans fert he pr ocee di ngs i s deni ed.