JoAnn Fonzone v. Tribune Corp
669 F. App'x 76
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Jo Ann Fonzone sued over an allegedly libelous newspaper article and related internet postings in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- The District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Fonzone failed to establish complete diversity.
- Fonzone repeatedly sought to reopen or otherwise relitigate the case in district court, including a prior unsuccessful motion to reopen.
- She filed a post-judgment motion characterized by the district court as under Rule 59(e) (alter/amend judgment), a request for attorneys’ fees under Rule 54, and Rule 60(b)(3) relief based on alleged fraud.
- The District Court denied all relief; Fonzone appealed and also sought a separate stay/settlement conference and other interlocutory relief from this Court.
- The Third Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and summarily affirmed the district court’s denial of relief, and denied Fonzone’s additional procedural requests (while noting a temporary stay was already granted).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction / Rule 59(e) motion | District court erred; judgment should be altered or amended to allow case to proceed | District court correctly concluded lack of complete diversity; no manifest error or new evidence shown | Denied — Fonzone did not show manifest error or new evidence to overturn jurisdictional dismissal |
| Attorneys' fees under Rule 54 | Fonzone sought fees (apparently for her own or representative efforts) | Fees improper; movant must be an attorney licensed to practice and fees for paralegal-type services to a pro se litigant are nonrecoverable | Denied — Fonzone failed to demonstrate she was a licensed attorney; fee request improper |
| Fraud on the court / Rule 60(b)(3) | Defendants and third parties committed fraud preventing fair presentation of her case | Allegations conclusory and unsupported; did not show misconduct that prevented presentation of case | Denied — conclusory assertions insufficient to meet Rule 60(b)(3) standard |
| Miscellaneous procedural relief (stay, injunction, discovery, retraction) | Requested settlement conference, discovery, injunction to retract/remove article and postings, and three-month medical stay | Court had previously addressed procedural posture; no basis for extraordinary relief here | Denied — appeal did not present substantial question; clerk’s temporary stay effectively granted the requested three-month stay |
Key Cases Cited
- Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 2013) (complete diversity requirement explained)
- Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666 (3d Cir. 2010) (standard for Rule 59(e) relief)
- Max’s Seafood Café ex rel Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 1999) (abuse-of-discretion review of Rule 59(e) denials)
- Coltec Indus., Inc. v. Hobgood, 280 F.3d 262 (3d Cir. 2002) (abuse-of-discretion review of Rule 60(b)(3) denials)
- Vanguard Envtl., Inc. v. Kerin, 528 F.3d 756 (10th Cir. 2008) (review standard for Rule 54(d)(2) fee denials)
- Piazza’s Seafood World LLC v. Odom, 448 F.3d 744 (5th Cir. 2006) (characterizing motions to alter judgment as Rule 59(e) where appropriate)
- Mayberry v. Walters, 862 F.2d 1040 (3d Cir. 1988) (no authority to treat paralegal services for pro se plaintiff as recoverable costs)
- Stridiron v. Stridiron, 698 F.2d 204 (3d Cir. 1983) (Rule 60(b)(3) requires proof that misconduct prevented full and fair presentation of case)