12-3826-cv

Gomes v. ANGOP

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO 

A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS 

GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLAT E PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S 

LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED 

WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN 

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY 

CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT 

REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United 

States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on 

the 19th day of November, two thousand thirteen.

PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI,

DENNY CHIN,

CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,

Circuit Judges.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

JOAO CARLOS SALVADOR GOMES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

-v- 12-3826-cv

ANGOP, ANGOLA PRESS AGENCY, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Joao Carlos Salvador Gomes, pro 

se, Jackson Heights, New York

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: Marjorie E. Berman, Krantz & 

Berman, LLP, New York, New York,
-2-

and Andrew Z. Schwartz, Foley Hoag 

LLP, Boston, Massachusetts.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of New York (Irizarry, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 

DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-appellant Joao Carlos Salvador Gomes, 

proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court's judgment

entered August 24, 2012, dismissing his complaint with 

prejudice. By opinion and order entered August 22, 2012, the 

district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of 

personal jurisdiction and lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 

and denied Gomes's motions, inter alia, to remand the case to 

state court. On appeal, Gomes raises a host of arguments. He 

also moves for leave to supplement the record on appeal and to 

file a supplemental appendix. We assume the parties’ 

familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and issues for 

review.

As an initial matter, we deny Gomes's motions to 

supplement the record. The record on appeal is typically 

limited to "the original papers and exhibits filed in the 

district court." Fed. R. App. P. 10(a)(1). Similarly, the 

appendix consists of "the relevant docket entries in the 
-3-

proceeding below" and "the relevant portions of the pleadings, 

charge, findings, or opinion." Fed. R. App. P. 30(a)(1)(A)-(B). 

Here, Gomes had ample opportunity below to submit evidence and 

did, in fact, submit hundreds of pages of exhibits in support of 

his arguments. "Ordinarily, material not included in the record 

on appeal will not be considered." Loria v. Gorman, 306 F.3d 

1271, 1280 n.2 (2d Cir. 2002) (internal citation omitted). No

"extraordinary circumstances" are apparent here that would cause 

us to consider anything outside the record. See Niagara Mohawk 

Power Corp. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 596 F.3d 112, 124 (2d Cir. 

2010) (quoting Int'l Bus. Mach. Corp. v. Edelstein, 526 F.2d 37, 

45 (2d Cir. 1975)).

We review de novo a district court's decision to deny 

a motion to remand. Pietrangelo v. Alvas Corp., 686 F.3d 62, 64 

(2d Cir. 2012). In reviewing a district court's decision to 

dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we 

review factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de 

novo. Maloney v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 517 F.3d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 

2008) (per curiam). Likewise, when a district court dismisses a 

complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, we review factual

findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. Marvel 

Characters, Inc. v. Kirby, 726 F.3d 119, 128 (2d Cir. 2013).
-4-

We have conducted an independent review of the record, 

and we affirm the district court's denial of Gomes's motion to 

remand and its dismissal of his complaint for lack of personal 

and subject matter jurisdiction, substantially for the reasons 

stated by the district court in its thorough opinion and order. 

We have considered all of Gomes's remaining arguments 

and conclude that they are without merit. For the foregoing 

reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. It is 

further ordered that Gomes's motions are DENIED.

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk