Abdul Jaludi v. Citigroup

Opinion

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________

No. 24-1358 __________

ABDUL A. JALUDI, Appellant

v.

CITIGROUP, and company or one or more of its direct or indirect subsidiaries ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (M.D. Pa. Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-02076) District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) December 6, 2024 Before: KRAUSE, PHIPPS, and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: January 24, 2025)

___________

OPINION * ___________

PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Abdul Jaludi, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the District Court denying his

motion for post-judgment relief in his action against his former employer. For the

reasons that follow, we will affirm.

Jaludi filed a lawsuit against Citigroup raising claims under the Racketeer

Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (“RICO”), and the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A. Jaludi alleged that Citgroup fired him

in retaliation for his reporting improprieties in its internal complaint monitoring system.

The District Court granted Citicorp’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the

action. On appeal, we affirmed the judgment as to the RICO claim but held that the

District Court had erred in compelling arbitration of the Sarbanes-Oxley claim. Jaludi v.

Citigroup, 933 F.3d 246, 251, 257 (3d Cir. 2019). On remand, the District Court granted

Citigroup’s motion to dismiss the Sarbanes-Oxley claim. We affirmed. Jaludi v.

Citigroup & Co., 57 F.4th 148, 150 (3d Cir. 2023).

Seven months later, Jaludi filed a motion to return his RICO claim to the District

Court. He argued that Citigroup had waived its right to arbitration by not initiating

arbitration proceedings within 30 days of our decision in 2023. The District Court

adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation to deny relief. It construed

Jaludi’s filing as a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and ruled

that the motion was untimely and without merit.

2 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the District

Court’s denial of relief under Rule 60(b) for abuse of discretion. Cox v. Horn, 757 F.3d

113, 118 (3d Cir. 2014).

Jaludi asserts on appeal that the District Court failed to decide his appeal of a

Magistrate Judge’s order striking his motion for summary judgment on the merits of his

claims. He seeks a ruling on that motion. Jaludi filed a summary judgment motion after

Citigroup moved to compel arbitration. In 2016, the Magistrate Judge struck the filing

without prejudice as premature. The District Court overruled Jaludi’s objection to that

order when it granted Citigroup’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed his action. 1

When the case was remanded in 2019 to adjudicate Jaludi’s Sarbanes-Oxley claim, he

renewed his objection. Jaludi contends his filings in this regard were not addressed.

Jaludi’s argument is not properly before us. Our jurisdiction is limited to the

review of the denial of his motion for post-judgment relief. Jaludi’s sole argument was

that the District Court should adjudicate his RICO claim because Citigroup had waived

arbitration. He did not contend that the District Court failed to address his objection to

(or appeal of) the Magistrate Judge’s order. We thus do not consider this argument. See

Garza v. Citigroup Inc., 881 F.3d 277, 284 (3d Cir. 2018) (noting that arguments not

presented to the District Court may not be raised on appeal).

1 Jaludi also appealed the Magistrate Judge’s order to this Court, and we dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See C.A. No. 16-3167, 10/5/16 Order. 3 Jaludi also challenges the District Court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion on the

merits. The District Court rejected Jaludi’s contention that Citigroup had waived

arbitration. It stated that he was required to pursue his RICO claim in arbitration and that

he never sent Citigroup a written demand for arbitration, which would have triggered

Citigroup’s obligations under their agreement. Jaludi argues that, under Pennsylvania

law, he demanded arbitration through the filing of his lawsuit. He also contends that

Citigroup misled the courts by failing to submit the parties’ most current arbitration

agreement.

Jaludi, however, also did not raise these arguments in his post-judgment motion.

And even if they were properly before us, he does not challenge the District Court’s

ruling that his motion was untimely under Rule 60(c)(1). This was an independent basis

for denying relief, and “[t]he failure to challenge an independent basis for a district

court’s decision is fatal to an appeal.” LabMD Inc. v. Boback, 47 F.4th 164, 191 (3d Cir.

2022).

Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. 2

2 Jaludi’s motion to reject Citigroup’s brief and supplemental appendix is denied. 4