No.

21-1^#*
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_______________________________________________________

REINARD SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DARA KHOSROWSHAHI; TRAVIS KALANICK; GARRETT CAMP;

BARNEY HARFORD; UBER TECHNOLOGIES
Defendants-Appellee,
_____________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Civil Action No. 1*–CV- 0*2*#-PD (E.D. Pa.)
(Honorable Paul S. Diamond, District Judge)
_____________________________________________________________________

APPELLANT’S AMENDED L.A.R. 27.4 MOTION

REINARD SMITH

New Jersey
Phone number
Rsmit162@student.ccp.edu
Pro se
 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S RULE 26.1
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Petitioner-Appellant, Reinard Smith, Pro se, is a natural person. As such, a corporate

disclosure statement is not required. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 26.1(a).

i.
 MISSING DOCKET ENTRIES

On May 19, 2021, I electronically received this Court’s judgment dismissing my appeal for a lack
of having appellate jurisdiction, the same day I logged into the pacer website and saved several court
docket statements showing, that my February 16, 2021 filing was not entered into record and thereby not
considered in this Court’s ruling to dismiss my appeal. Thereafter, I visited the Federal Building on 6 th
Market hoping to speak with the clerk for the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in order, to find out what
happen to my February 16, 2021 filing, as it wasn’t showing up in the recorded entries. However, due to
Covid-19 restrictions I was unsuccessful in my attempt, I next tried calling the number I was provided
(267) 299-4970 in which I never received an answer, but I did leave a message.

It was apparent my only other option was to email, so on May 20, 21, and 25 of 2021I sent emails
addressing the missing entries in the docketing statement which didn’t show up. After not receiving a
response, I continued to send emails where on May 27, 2021, I received my first response, however, it
was concerning my dismissal in the district court Civil Action 2:19-0#*^*. I responded by informing
them that my emails concerned my appeal in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals under 20-1072, and it
just didn’t make since that the district court staff and the Third Circuit court staff were not
communicating with each other as I had been told. I inquired on why couldn’t communication between
the district court staff and the Third Circuit court staff take place by emails? Again, I was told that such
communication wasn’t as simple as it may seem, also that the two court staffs didn’t really interact with
each other that often.

Still, after sending out numerous emails, up unto June 9, 2021, I filed a L.A.R. 27.4 motion
pertaining the confusion surrounding my filing, yet it wasn’t until then that, case manager team jk notified
me that my February 16, 2021 filing was on the docketing statement. However, respectfully the docketing
statement that was provided on June 9, 2021, didn’t exist May 20, 2021, if it did then it should have been
provided to me before I filed my L.A.R. 27.4 motion to vacate the judgment as, I may have chosen to
take a different course or, argue under different circumstances. The failure to promptly address and clear
up this matter of the missing docket entries, has caused me harm in the way of being subjected to
arbitrary and capricious communications between court staff and myself. The deprived access to needed
court information, all which shows an appearance of discrimination towards pro se litigants, while at the
same time giving my matter a look of impropriety.

As I pointed out earlier, I was provided a docketing statement June 9, 2021, showing entries
which weren’t recorded on the docketing statements I secured earlier on May 20-21, 2021. The case
manager team contacted me June 9, 2021 by way of phone concerning the missing entries yet, as early as
May 21, 2021 the case managers team was aware of my issue of the missing entries but, didn’t offer the
so-called docketing statement with the missing entries. Instead, the case manager team construed my
email absent my consent as a motion to reconsider. This is highly discriminatory where, licensed counsel
emails would not have been turned into a motion without his or her consent, however, because I am pro se
court staff was able to do such, which could be a good thing but, my consent should still be first obtained.
The email was to touch on a point, it wasn’t my clear articulate legal argument I wanted to put before this
Court.
 1.

As I wasn’t provided with the docket statement when I first brought the matter to the court’s staff,
it just seems, looking at the matter in totality, the docketing statement didn’t exist on May 20, 2021. It
appears to be a docketing statement newly made, which is why it wasn’t offered to me when I first started
to inquire about the matter and though this may seem farfetched by the Court, it doesn’t erase the
impropriety the circumstances have created around my matter.

ARGUMENT

While I was afforded an opportunity to object to the dismissal of my appeal, this Court’s order
doesn’t appear to address why my challenge to the district court’s departure from binding precedent
failed, in both my issues that the district court unlawfully had not resolved my threshold jurisdictional
challenge concerning me being compelled to state arbitration proceedings over a “contract evidencing a
transaction involving commerce.” See Litton RCS, Inc., v Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 376
F.Supp. 579, 586 (E.D. Dist. Court, Pa. 1974) (“The United States Arbitration Act will govern
construction of the arbitration agreement when the contract evidences a transaction "involving
commerce." If the contract does not evidence a transaction involving commerce, state law will apply”
(citing Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co., 350 U.S. 198, 201-202, 76 S. Ct. 273, 100 L. Ed. 199 (1956);
Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395, 87 S. Ct. 1801, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1270
(1967)). Clearly, a line was meant to be drawn between what contracts would be governed by federal
arbitration and, what contracts would be governed by state arbitration in which, I challenged Appellee-
Defendant’s ability to compel arbitration in a state forum when, the contract evidences a transaction in
commerce.

It is the law that, all judges are bound by the doctrine of stare decisis (a duty to abide by decisions
of a higher court), without it the legal system would not work. Addressing subject-matter jurisdiction as a
threshold issue is binding precedent. Also, my issue of how the district court as well, broke precedent
with the manner in how a district court “must,” mandatory language; first determine if a contract is
exempt from the FAA before compelling state arbitration proceedings. See Singh v. Uber Techs. Inc.,
939 F.3d 210, 217 (3d Cir. 2019) (citing New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 139 S. Ct. 532 (2019). Such action
taken by the district court violates stare decisis, and binding precedent is only to be broken by special
justifications, which none were cited as the reasons why the district court, intentionally failed to follow
precedent. However, what is unlawful is that, the district court would be able to insulate its blatant
violation behind an interlocutory appeal. See Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 265-266 (1986). (“the
important doctrine of stare decisis,….. That doctrine permits society to presume that bedrock principles
are founded in the law, rather than in the proclivities of individuals, and thereby contributes to the
integrity of our constitutional system of government, both in appearance and in fact.”); Lee v. Florida,
392 U.S. 378, 385 (1985) (“no court, state or federal, may serve as an accomplice in the willful
transgression of the law of the United States,” laws by which the Judges in every state are bound…”).
 2.

Still, although clearly my due process right to be heard and, my right to expect courts to adhere to
stare decisis and not depart from binding precedent have been violated. I remain behind the perils of
being closed off by the effects of the rule of interlocutory appeal, whether the district court intentionally
departed from the doctrine of precedent goes uncorrected. Coupled with such blatant violations is, the
attrition surrounding the handling of my civil matter since it was filed, having to face discrimination as a
pro se litigant seems the norm in the judicial system. The probability that the district court’s judgment is
void, escapes review because my appeal status, despite a void judgment being one rendered by court
which acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v.
Woodson, 444 US 286, 291(1980) citing Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 732-733 (1878). (“A judgment
rendered in violation of due process is void”); (Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339
U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 657, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) (“The fundamental requisite of due process of law
is the opportunity to be heard.”).

If in fact, the order of the district court follows stare decisis or the doctrine of precedent, it stands
as a void judgment in which there is no interlocutory nature present to preclude my issues be rightly
resolved. This court has echoed the holding of the United States Supreme Court in New Prime Inc. that, a
district court must, meaning without discretion, “first determine that the exemption is not applicable,
"before making an order that the parties proceed to arbitration pursuant to §§ 3 and 4 of the FAA.” The
lack of these essential elements in the district court’s judgment, strips the district court’s decision of that
fundamental due process which protects the soundness and stability of the most pristine bedrock
principles which safeguard stare decisis.

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, this Court’s order dismissing my appeal for lack of
appellate jurisdiction, should be Vacated and remanded for the district court to address the threshold issue
of subject-matter jurisdiction as well as it’s departure from the United States Supreme Court’s decision in
New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 139 S. Ct. 532 (2019).
 3.

CONCLUSION

The dismissal of my appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction should be reversed

and Order Vacated because the district court’s order is void based on violates of stare decisis and
for lacking the fundamental prerequisites of due process of law.

June 18, 2021

Respectfully submitted,

REINARD SMITH

New Jersey
Phone number
Rsmit162@student.ccp.edu
Pro se
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 18th day of June, I filed the foregoing Amended Motion for
Summary Action TO VACATE JUDGMENT, on behalf of Appellant-Plaintiff, by means of the
First-Class United States postal service system, which will effect service upon all counsel of
record, including the following:

Paul C. Lantis, Attorney

Aaron J. Creuz, Attorney
Littler Mendelson, P.C.
Three Parkway
1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1400
Philadelphia, PA 19102.1321
PLantis@littler.com
267.402.3000 (t)