Mel Marin v. Pittsburgh Tribune Review
703 F. App'x 59
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Mel M. Marin filed two nearly identical suits (dockets 2:16-cv-00346 and 2:16-cv-00536) against the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review for defamation and fraud based on a April 29, 2015 article.
- In Case No. 346 Marin applied for in forma pauperis (IFP); the district court dismissed the complaint and IFP application without prejudice because Marin’s financial declaration was dated ~8 months earlier (stale) and invited a renewed declaration.
- In Case No. 536 Marin again sought IFP and asserted diversity jurisdiction; the court ordered a verified affidavit to support out-of-state citizenship, warned Marin that failure to comply would result in dismissal, and dismissed without prejudice when he did not comply.
- Marin later filed motions to vacate/reopen (Rule 60(b)) and to seal; the district court denied those motions without prejudice, consolidated the cases, required CM/ECF use, and compelled compliance with prior orders.
- Marin appealed; the Third Circuit exercised jurisdiction because Marin effectively stood on his dismissed pleadings and the one-year statute of limitations for defamation had run (making parts of the dismissal effectively final in practice).
- The Third Circuit affirmed summarily, holding the district court properly dismissed for failure to cure defects (stale IFP documentation; failure to establish diversity) and that Marin had notice of orders via mail and CM/ECF.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of dismissal for stale IFP paperwork (Case No. 346) | Marin implied the dismissal was improper and sought relief under Rule 60(b) or to extend appeal time | Court maintained dismissal without prejudice was appropriate because Marin submitted an outdated financial declaration and never cured it | Affirmed: dismissal for failure to provide current IFP information was proper; denial of relief appropriate absent compliance |
| Dismissal for failure to show diversity (Case No. 536) | Marin contended he was diverse and later filed supplements; argued lack of mail notice for orders | Court doubted diversity given facts (Pennsylvania resident, local newspaper, transient addresses) and Marin failed to file the ordered verified affidavit | Affirmed: dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (failure to establish diversity) proper |
| Whether denial of post-judgment relief was effectively with prejudice (appealability) | Marin argued that statutes of limitations had run, so denial without prejudice was effectively with prejudice and immediately appealable | Court found only defamation claim was time-barred; Marin’s conduct showed he stood on pleadings so appealable as practical finality | Court exercised jurisdiction and reviewed the denials; appeal not barred |
| Notice of court orders (mail vs. electronic) | Marin claimed he did not receive orders by mail and thus noncompliance excused | Court showed certified mail and CM/ECF notices were sent; Marin had used electronic filing and thus received email notice; failure to check email/mail is not excused | Affirmed: Marin had notice; non-receipt claim insufficient to excuse noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Ragguette v. Premier Wines & Spirits, 691 F.3d 315 (3d Cir. 2012) (describing CM/ECF and electronic notice)
- Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950 (3d Cir. 1976) (appealability of certain dismissals)
- Fassett v. Delta Kappa Epsilon, 807 F.2d 1150 (3d Cir. 1986) (statute-of-limitations tolling and forfeiture principles)
- Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 177 (3d Cir. 2007) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- Semerenko v. Cendant Corp., 223 F.3d 165 (3d Cir. 2000) (stand on pleading doctrine and amendment futility)
- United States v. Rinaldi, 447 F.3d 192 (3d Cir. 2006) (standards for review of Rule 60(b) rulings)
- Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 1999) (standard for motions to reconsider)
- Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007) (electronic notice and responsibility to monitor email)
- Two-Way Media LLC v. AT&T, Inc., 782 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (failure to check electronic notice does not excuse lack of notice)
- Khor Chin Lim v. CourtCall Inc., 683 F.3d 378 (7th Cir. 2012) (same principle regarding electronic notice)