Opinion ID: 221276
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prior Appeals

Text: This lawsuit was preceded by a nearly identical one filed with Beasley named as the plaintiff. The district court dismissed that case for lack of standing after it was discovered that Beasley had previously assigned all his intellectual property rights to USPPS. The district court also denied Beasley's motion to add USPPS as a party and sanctioned him for concealing the assignment. Beasley appealed but filed no briefing, and the clerk of this court entered an order dismissing the appeal for failure to prosecute. See Beasley v. Avery Dennison Corp., No. 07-51311, 2008 U.S.App. LEXIS 28075, at  (5th Cir. Feb. 7, 2008) (citing 5TH CIR. R. 42.3). The lawsuit was then refiled in USPPS's name, including additional allegations based on information learned in the course of discovery in the prior suit. The district court dismissed the claims as time-barred. USPPS appealed, and we reversed and remanded for further factual development, concluding that the discovery rule or fraudulent-concealment doctrine might apply on the face of the complaint. USPPS, 326 Fed.Appx. at 851. The parties made no arguments concerning jurisdiction in that appeal, and our prior opinion makes no mention of the basis for the court's jurisdiction other than to describe the complaint as asserting that the case was based on diversity of citizenship. Id. at 843.