Christopher Rogalski v. Laureate Education Inc

── Christopher Rogalski v. Laureate Education Inc ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: April 30, 2026 Category: General DLD-115 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 25-1441 ___________ CHRISTOPHER A. ROGALSKI, Appellant v. LAUREATE EDUCATION, INC.; LAUREATE ONLINE EDUCATION BV; THE UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-11747) District Judge: Honorable Edward S. Kiel ____________________________________ Submitted on Laureate Education, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 April 16, 2026 Before: RESTREPO, PORTER, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: April 30, 2026) _________ OPINION* _________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PER CURIAM Christopher Rogalski appeals pro se from two post-judgment decisions entered by the District Court in this diversity action that he brought against Laureate Education, Inc. (“LEI”), Laureate Online Education BV, and the University of Liverpool (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”). LEI has moved to summarily affirm. We grant that motion and will summarily affirm the District Court’s two post-judgment decisions. I. In 2020, Rogalski sued Defendants in New Jersey state court, raising claims for, inter alia, breach of contract and fraud related to his participation in an online LL.M. program. LEI, the only served defendant, removed the case to federal court, invoking the District Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). LEI then moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing as follows: (1) a forum-selection clause (“FSC”) in an annex to a student-agreement form required that the case be litigated in the Netherlands; and (2) in the alternative, Rogalski’s claims were untimely under New Jersey’s six-year statute of limitations. On September 30, 2022, the District Court granted LEI’s motion, agreeing with LEI’s first argument (the District Court did not reach the second argument). Rogalski appealed from the District Court’s September 30, 2022 judgment. In April 2023, we affirmed that judgment, albeit on a different basis than that relied on by the District Court.1 We did not decide whether the FSC warranted dismissing Rogalski’s 1 We may affirm a district court’s judgment on any basis supported by the record. See Murray v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam). 2 complaint; instead, we concluded that “LEI’s statute-of-limitations argument in the District Court, which it maintain[ed] on appeal, is sound and on its own required dismissal of [the] complaint.” Rogalski v. Laureate Educ., Inc., No. 22-3004, 2023 WL 2882702, at *3 (3d Cir. Apr. 11, 2023) [hereinafter Rogalski I] (per curiam) (citation omitted).2 We also concluded that, to the extent an “aspect of his complaint may . . . be timely,” that part of the complaint was “nevertheless moot.” Id. at *4. We subsequently denied his petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, as well as his motion