motion for relief under rule sixty b and wrote the standard for granting every consideration motion district and reconsideration will generally be right unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court o does not be peer of the seriousness of this error reckless was the pride of the proper legal standard for reviewing a motion for relief under sixty b which is clearly stipulated in the f r c p add your case had previously been dismissed because the court found in the first instance the statute of limitations has run had run i'm coming to that all right you know but i'm asking you a question so that we do it here it is my time i mean all right vacate we believe it is bad practice for a district court to dismiss without affording a plaintive the opportunity to be heard the fifth circuit ruled by not providing notice that it was considering the limitations a ignored relevant material the supreme court's ruling to take is also inconsistent with the due process since the supreme court's ruling was specifically created to accord the parties fair notice and an opportunity to present their positions and to and exceptionally high standard that mr record cannot meet here and underlying that is the district court's decision and in considering a rule sixty b motion that court had to recognize that it was a mechanism for extraordinary judicial relief that is only awarded in exceptional circumstances so we have here layers upon layers of exceptionality that would be required for this court overrule the decision of judge judge kogan on the motion below on top of that this case as judge all noted has been before this court already just over a year ago we appeared before a panel and at that time mr reface sought review to judge kogan and dismissal of points among the things mentioned by mr reface this morning is his concern with regard to sue sponte dismissal on the grounds of statute of limitations and this court specifically addressed that issue during the priority  man and its decision and found that it was not improper for the court to dismiss the first arista claim on the grounds of limitations in those circumstances because the bases for these the defense were found entirely within the four corners of the complaint in addition mr records states that the district court's decision was eroni sleep late on a finding of fact that he had access to certain plan documents at the time that he was an independent contractor or at least employed to morgan stanley a time period that dates back more than fifteen years and up to thirty years ago but in fact that was not the basis for this court's decision when when this court upheld the decision below it was based upon the fact that mr rattus says in his complaint that he was aware of his misclassification he was aware of the fact that he was being classified as an as a ten ninety nine person and as a least employed during that period of time under the mandate rule that case is over at this point and it is improper for mr ruckus to be attacking this in directly what he failed on attacking directly moreover he raises precisely the same arguments here that he already raised below both before the district court and before this court on the prior appeal we in our brief take the time  through and demonstrate how the very same arguments are here and there and here and there his primary argument concerns certain plan documents that we attached to affidavits on our motion to dismiss and claims that they were  misinterpreted by us he actually uses more inflammatory words than that but i'll use that and that we somehow misled the district court but those also those plans were all before the district court of the time they're all before this court at the  time and there was nothing fraudulent about it indeed as referenced in the briefing mr reckless in a separate state action had brought a claim against morgan stanley kramer eleven my firm as well arising far and in addition mr records made a motion for review on bonk that was denied by the court separately when after judge kogan issued his motion to dismiss there were two state court actions that he declined to exercise over and therefore those went back to state court so there's that state court action pending mr records subsequently filed an additional state court action against morgan stanley and kramer levin this time as a defendant as well that has now been court ruled whether suicide on the statute of limitations was fair or not whether was within the face of the complaint this is not what we're talking about today today we're talking about bypassing of you know ignoring what