Abdullah v. Small Business Banking Department of Bank of America, 628 F. App'x 83

Pro se plaintiff Waliyyuddin Abdullah sued Wells Fargo and Bank of America in Pennsylvania state court alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act for refusing a small-business loan. Defendants removed to federal court.
This was Abdullah’s fourth suit over the same loan-refusal allegations; prior federal suits were dismissed for failure to state a claim and an earlier appeal was summarily affirmed.
After removal, defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Abdullah moved to remand and did not oppose the dismissal motion.
The District Court dismissed Abdullah’s complaint pursuant to E.D. Pa. Local Rule 7.1(c) for failure to file a timely opposition; Abdullah appealed.
The Third Circuit exercised plenary review, concluded summary affirmance was appropriate, and relied on claim preclusion as an alternative ground for affirmance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal under local rule was improper without Rule 12(b)(6) analysis	Abdullah argued dismissal was improper; he also moved to remand	Defendants argued dismissal was warranted given no opposition and prior dismissals	District Court dismissed under Local R. 7.1(c); Third Circuit noted such dismissals should typically include Rule 12(b)(6) analysis but affirmed on other grounds
Whether the complaint is barred by claim preclusion	Abdullah contended new filing was allowable and raised a different legal theory	Defendants argued prior final judgments on same claims against same parties bar relitigation	Court held claim preclusion applies: prior final judgment on merits + same parties + same cause of action -> claim barred
Whether federal court had proper subject-matter jurisdiction (remand issue)	Abdullah argued removal was untimely and only state-law claims were asserted	Defendants relied on diversity jurisdiction and timely removal; 30-day removal rule is procedural	Court observed district court clearly had diversity jurisdiction; timeliness was procedural and appears satisfied
Whether a new legal theory avoids preclusion	Abdullah asserted a new legal theory in the latest complaint	Defendants maintained the new theory could have been presented earlier and does not avoid preclusion	Court held new theory insufficient to evade claim preclusion

Fleisher v. Standard Ins. Co., 679 F.3d 116 (3d Cir. 2012) (standard of review for district-court orders on appeal)
Stackhouse v. Mazurkiewicz, 951 F.2d 29 (3d Cir. 1991) (district courts should not dismiss solely for local-rule violations without considering Rule 12(b)(6))
Lubrizol Corp. v. Exxon Corp., 929 F.2d 960 (3d Cir. 1991) (elements of claim preclusion)
Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 (U.S. 1981) (preclusive effect of prior merits dismissals)
Cieszkowska v. Gray Line N.Y., 295 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (prior dismissal bars relitigation of same allegations)
Churchill v. Star Enters., 183 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 1999) (new legal theories that could have been raised earlier do not avoid preclusion)
Hughes v. Long, 242 F.3d 121 (3d Cir. 2001) (courts may affirm on any ground apparent in the record)
Farina v. Nokia Inc., 625 F.3d 97 (3d Cir. 2010) (removal-timeliness rule is procedural, not jurisdictional)
Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303 (U.S. 2006) (diversity jurisdiction rules for national banks)
Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (U.S. 1999) (service-triggering rules relevant to removal timeliness)