TERRY WILLIAMS; RAYMOND WILLIAMS, husband and wife v. Amerisuites

Honorable Louis H. Pollak, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the*
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-3359
TERRY WILLIAMS; RAYMOND WILLIAMS, husband and wife,
Appellants
v.
AMERISUITES; HYATT CORPORATION; GLOBAL HYATT CORPORATION,
On Appeal of a Decision of the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey (No. 07-cv-02755)
District Judge: Robert B. Kugler
Submitted under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
February 1, 2008
Before: RENDELL and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges,
and POLLAK, District Judge.*
(Filed: February 20, 2008 )
OPINION
POLLAK, District Judge

-- 1 of 3 --

2
On June 13, 2007, plaintiff-appellants Terry and Raymond Williams instituted this
action by filing a complaint against Amerisuites, Hyatt Corporation, and Global Hyatt
Corporation. On its own motion, the District Court dismissed the complaint without
prejudice because the complaint asserted jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 but did not
properly allege the citizenship of each party. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
on June 29, 2007, that corrected some of the omissions, but still failed properly to allege
the citizenship of Raymond Williams. Accordingly, the District Court dismissed the
amended complaint on July 5, 2007. On July 18, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
reinstate the complaint and for leave to file a second amended complaint. The District
Court construed this motion as one for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b), or, alternatively, for reconsideration under District of New Jersey Local
Civil Rule 7.1(i), and denied the motion because the plaintiffs had not advanced any
cause for relief cognizable under either rule.
In its decision, the District Court noted that the plaintiffs filed a bare motion
without any accompanying statement of why the motion should be granted. This was
unwise, because arguments are only preserved for appeal if they are first made to the
District Court. See, e.g., DIRECTV, Inc. v. Seijas, 508 F.3d 123, 125 n.1 (3d Cir. 2007).
In choosing not to make any arguments to the District Court, the plaintiffs failed to
preserve any arguments for appeal. Moreover, whether the plaintiffs’ motion is construed
as one to reconsider, alter, or grant relief from an otherwise final judgment, the plaintiffs,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
as the moving parties, bore the burden of demonstrating their entitlement to relief.
Because the plaintiffs failed to advance any reason for disturbing the judgment, we cannot
fault the District Court for declining to do so.
* * * * *
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order denying the
plaintiffs’ motion to reinstate the complaint and to file a second amended complaint.

-- 3 of 3 --