>>> Sad.
>3/2/07 JUDGMENT affirmed. Costs taxed against the Appellant, (clc) [06-2246 06-4166]
>From
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/062246np.pdf
>3/2/2007
>
> 3/2/07 NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION (McKee, Ambro, and
>Stapleton, Circuit Judges), filed. *Total Pages: 5. (clc)
>[06-2246 06-4166]
>
> 3/2/07 JUDGMENT affirmed. Costs taxed against the Appellant,
>filed. (clc) [06-2246 06-4166]
>
>
>UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
>FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
>NOS. 06-2246 & 06-4166 (Consolidated)
>________________
>GORDON ROY PARKER, doing business as SNODGRASS
>PUBLISHING GROUP also known as RAY GORDON
>v.
>LEARN THE SKILLS CORP.; FORMHANDLE@
FASTSEDUCTION.COM;
>THOM E. GEIGER; PAUL ROSS also known as ROSS JEFFRIES
>also known as EROSLA77@
AOL.COM; TRUSTEES OF
>UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA; MATTHEW S. WOLF, ESQ.
>Gordon Roy Parker,
>Appellant
>____________________________________
>On Appeal From the United States District Court
>For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
>(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-02752)
>Chief District Judge: Honorable Harvey Bartle III
>_______________________________________
>Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
>February 26, 2007
>BEFORE: McKEE, AMBRO and STAPLETON, CIRCUIT JUDGES
>(Filed March 2, 2007)
>_______________________
>OPINION
>_______________________
>2
>PER CURIAM
>Gordon Roy Parker, acting pro se, appeals an order of the United
>States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
>dismissing his complaint for failing
>to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against two
>defendants and for lack of personal jurisdiction over the remaining
>defendants. In a separately filed appeal, he seeks review of the
>District Court's denial of his motion for reconsideration and motion
>to vacate judgment. These appeals have been consolidated for all
>purposes.
>Parker's complaint alleges that defendants belong to a criminal
>enterprise designed to control the market for online advice about how
>to seduce women. As described more fully in the District Court's
>opinion and in painstaking detail in Parker's amended complaint,
>defendants allegedly diverted traffic from a public online "USENET"
>group to a private online discussion forum that they controlled,
>harassed plaintiff and attempted to undermine his reputation, and
>hindered his attempts to defend himself against these attacks. Parker
>alleges that these actions violated, inter alia, the Racketeer
>Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), federal antitrust
>statutes, and state common law prohibitions on civil conspiracy, abuse
>of process, and fraudulent misrepresentation.
>
>We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. В§ 1291. We undertake
>plenary review of the District Court's dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6),
>accepting as true all factual allegations in the complaint and viewing
>them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See AT&T
>Corp. v. JMC Telecom, LLC, 470 F.3d 525, 529 (3d Cir. 3 2006). Our
>review of the District Court's rulings on personal jurisdiction is
>likewise plenary, except to the extent that they involved factual
>findings, which are reviewed for clear error. See Pennzoil Prods. Co.
>v. Colelli & Assocs., Inc. 149 F.3d 197, 200 (3d Cir. 1998). We review
>the District Court's denial of reconsideration for abuse of
>discretion.
>See Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 233 (3d Cir. 2004).
>
>The amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
>granted against defendant Matthew Wolf. The RICO, civil conspiracy,
>and abuse of process claims against him all rely on allegations that
>Wolf improperly moved to dismiss an earlier complaint filed in the
>Eastern District of Pennsylvania against many of the defendants
>involved in this case. Civ. No. 03-cv-06936. We agree with the
>District Court's conclusion that the challenged behavior was properly
>within the scope of Wolf's representation of his clients, and that it
>fails to support either the federal statutory or state law tort claims
>against him. See Gen. Refractories Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 337
>F.3d 297 (3d Cir. 2003).
>The District Court also properly dismissed the claims that the
>Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania violated RICO and engaged
>in a civil conspiracy and fraudulent misrepresentation. These claims
>arise from the University's alleged refusal to disclose the identity
>of a student who Parker claims was involved in the plots against
>plaintiff. We essentially agree with the reasoning of the District
>Court. The conspiracy claim fails because the only alleged
>participants are the University and one of its employees, and absent
>narrow exceptions not present here, agents of an entity cannot
>conspire with their employer. See Gen. Refractories Co., 337 F.3d at
>313-14. Even if the fraudulent misrepresentation claim survived
>scrutiny under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), the complaint fails to allege all
>the elements of the claim, notably justifiable reliance. See, Porreco
>v. Porreco, 811 A.2d 566, 570-71 (Pa. 2002). As the District Court
>described, Parker's RICO claim against the University is also fatally
>flawed.
>The District Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the remaining
>defendants. None of these defendants resides in Pennsylvania or has a
>"continuous and substantial" connection to the state, and none has
>sufficient minimum contacts with Pennsylvania to "reasonably
>anticipate[] being haled into court there." Pennzoil, 149 F.3d at
>200-201 (citations omitted). As explained by the District Court, the
>generalized allegations of defendants' contact with Pennsylvania
>contained in Parker's amended complaint and pleadings are insufficient
>to meet his burden of proof on the jurisdictional issue. See Time
>Share Vacation Club v. Atlantic Resorts, Ltd., 735 F.2d 61, 66-67 (3d
>Cir. 1984). Nor are they sufficient to make out a prima facie case
>that could justify jurisdictional discovery. See Mass. Sch. of Law at
>Andover, Inc. v. Am. Bar Ass'n, 107 F.3d 1026, 1042 (3d Cir. 1997).
>Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in the District Court's denial
>of Parker's motions for reconsideration and to vacate, which
>identified neither errors in the
>District Court's order nor any other basis to justify revisiting that
>order. Accordingly, we will affirm the order of the District Court.
