ABC ARBITRAGE v. CAEN (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-02-10No. No. 19-56142

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's denial of Caen's second motion to set aside the default judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) was affirmed because Caen failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances beyond his control that prevented timely relief.

Hervé Caen sought to overturn a default judgment against him by filing a second motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), which permits courts to set aside default judgments only when extraordinary circumstances—those beyond a party's control—prevented the party from seeking relief earlier. Caen did not demonstrate that any such circumstances existed. Instead, he argued that the underlying case had merit and that the district court's decision was wrong, but disagreement with an adverse judgment does not constitute the type of extraordinary circumstance required by the rule. The court concluded that Caen could not use Rule 60(b)(6) to relitigate a case he had lost more than two years prior without providing any valid explanation for his delay.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Standard for extraordinary circumstances under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)
Whether party dissatisfaction with judgment constitutes extraordinary circumstances
Timeliness and reasonableness requirements for Rule 60(b)(6) motions

Procedural posture

Caen appealed the district court's denial of his second motion to set aside a default judgment, and the appellate court reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Hervé Caen appeals the district courts denial of his second motion to set aside the default judgment against him pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here, except as necessary to provide context to our ruling. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), a court may set aside a default judgment “only where extraordinary circumstances prevented a litigant from seeking earlier, more timely relief.” United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993). Extraordinary circumstances are those “beyond [the partys] control.” Cmty. Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 2002). Rule 60(b)(6) requires that the motion be filed “within a reasonable time.” Although what is considered reasonable “depends on the facts of each case, relief may not be had where the party seek reconsideration has ignored normal legal recourses.” Alpine Land, 984 F.2d at 1049 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Extraordinary circumstances do not exist here. Caen does not establish that anything “beyond [his] control prevented” him from taking “timely action to protect [his] interests.” Id. Instead, Caen argues that the merits of the underlying case warrant setting aside the default judgment. A partys dissatisfaction with a district courts decision, however, does not amount to extraordinary circumstances under Rule 60(b)(6). See Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, Caen may not use Rule 60(b)(6) as a mechanism for challenging the merits of a case he lost more than two years ago, without offering any excuse for his delay.

AFFIRMED.