Domenic Tricome v. eBay, Inc., 683 F. App'x 183

Domenic Tricome filed an antitrust and contract complaint in the E.D. Pa. on October 7, 2015; parts of the complaint (including a referenced “page 6”) were missing.
The District Court ordered the Clerk to hold the case in suspense and twice directed Tricome to file a complete copy of the complaint, warning that failure to comply could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Tricome did not cure the deficient filing within roughly seven months and failed to provide the missing pages or clarify his claims.
The District Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The Third Circuit determined it had appellate jurisdiction because the applicable statutes of limitations had run (claims alleged to arise May 7, 2007), so the dismissal was effectively final.
The Third Circuit affirmed, finding dismissal appropriate where plaintiff’s conduct made adjudication impossible.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the District Court abused its discretion by dismissing for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)	Tricome effectively argued (by proceeding with appeal) that dismissal was improper despite not curing the defective complaint	District Court: dismissal proper because Tricome failed to file the missing pages after two orders and warning, making adjudication impossible	Affirmed: dismissal did not abuse discretion where plaintiff’s failure to cure prevented any meaningful adjudication
Whether appellate jurisdiction exists over a dismissal without prejudice	Tricome implicitly contended appeal was proper	Appellee argued dismissal was final because statutes of limitations had run	Held: Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the claims were time-barred, rendering the dismissal effectively final
Whether the Poulis balancing factors were required before dismissal sua sponte	Tricome argued dismissal should be subject to Poulis balancing	Appellee argued Poulis not required where conduct makes adjudication impossible	Held: Poulis balancing unnecessary where plaintiff’s contumacious conduct renders adjudication impossible
Whether the complaint’s defects prevented defendants from responding	Tricome asserted sufficiency or ability to cure	District Court argued the complaint gave no basis to respond (referenced missing page)	Held: Complaint failed to articulate claims, injuries, or relief; dismissal appropriate

Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (recognizing district court authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute)
Donnelly v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 677 F.2d 339 (sua sponte dismissal for failure to prosecute or obey court orders)
Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (enumerating factors for dismissal as a sanction)
Guyer v. Beard, 907 F.2d 1424 (dismissal appropriate where petitioner’s conduct makes adjudication impossible)
Spain v. Gallegos, 26 F.3d 439 (affirming sua sponte dismissal where plaintiff willfully refused to prosecute)
Doe v. Megless, 654 F.3d 404 (standard of review for Rule 41(b) dismissals)
Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950 (when dismissal without prejudice can be final for purposes of appeal)
Fassett v. Delta Kappa Epsilon, 807 F.2d 1150 (statute of limitations makes dismissal without prejudice final for appeal)