Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02902/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02902-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

PS3-017 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-2902

___________

KEITH DOUGHERTY, Assignee of Bill’s Mechanical and 

Welding (Fictitious name) Sole Proprietor Larry Runk II

v.

CARLISLE TRANSPORTATION PRODUCTS, INC.

Keith Dougherty; *Larry Runk, II, 

Appellants

(*Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 12(a))

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 1-13-cv-00857)

District Judge: Honorable J. Frederick Motz

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

November 18, 2015

Before: FISHER, SHWARTZ and COWEN, Circuit Judges

(Filed: November 19, 2015)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-2902 Document: 003112133980 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/19/2015
2

Keith Dougherty and Larry Runk, II appeal pro se from the District Court’s order 

denying their motion for relief under Rules 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. We will affirm. 

Dougherty is a frequent litigant before this Court. Although he is not a licensed 

attorney, he sometimes attempts to represent and assert claims belonging to entities and 

other individuals, including Runk. See, e.g., Dougherty v. Erie Ins. Exch., 612 F. App’x 

639, 642 (3d Cir. 2015); Dougherty v. Carlisle Transp. Prods., Inc., 610 F. App’x 91, 92 

(3d Cir. 2015). In this case, Dougherty filed suit seeking payment of a debt that Carlisle 

Transportation Products, Inc., allegedly owes to a company of which Runk is the sole 

proprietor. Dougherty asserted that Runk assigned the claim to him. The District Court 

concluded that the assignment was invalid as champertous under Pennsylvania law and 

entered summary judgment in Carlisle Transportation’s favor. We affirmed. See

Dougherty, 610 F. App’x at 93-94.

The day after our ruling, Dougherty and Runk (who was not previously a party) 

filed a motion with the District Court seeking to set aside its judgment under Rules 

60(b)(4) and 60(b)(6). They argued that the District Court’s previous ruling was 

erroneous and sought to amend the complaint in order to add Runk as a plaintiff. The 

District Court denied the motion without comment, and Dougherty and Runk appeal.1

 

1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over the 

District Court’s denial of relief under Rule 60(b)(4) but review the denial of relief under 

Rule 60(b)(6) for abuse of discretion. See Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d 244, 

251 & n.5 (3d Cir. 2008). Runk signed the Rule 60(b) motion and has signed certain 

Case: 15-2902 Document: 003112133980 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/19/2015
3

We will affirm. Dougherty essentially argues that the District Court’s judgment is 

“void” for purposes of Rule 60(b)(4) because it is incorrect. We already have affirmed 

that judgment, however, and we denied Dougherty’s motion for rehearing en banc. 

Dougherty did not seek certiorari, and “a Rule 60(b) motion may not be used as a 

substitute for appeal[.]” Smith v. Evans, 853 F.2d 155, 158 (3d Cir. 1988). Dougherty’s 

continuing disagreement with the District Court’s ruling does not render it “void.”

Dougherty also has not shown the “extraordinary circumstances” required for 

relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Budget Blinds, 536 F.3d at 255. Dougherty has not alleged 

any reason, extraordinary or otherwise, why Runk could not have sought to join in the 

suit earlier than he did. And even if Dougherty could establish some such reason, Runk’s 

absence from the suit had no bearing on the District Court’s ruling or on ours. Runk’s 

purported assignment of his claims to Dougherty remains invalid as champertous 

regardless of whether Runk himself is a party to the suit. Naming Runk as a plaintiff thus 

would not give Dougherty standing to assert Runk’s claims. Runk himself certainly 

remains free to assert whatever claims he may have on his own behalf, but he has shown 

no extraordinary reason for doing so in this closed case. 

For these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court. Appellants’ 

motions are denied.

 

filings on appeal, but “[t]he style and content of [these] joint filings suggest that they 

were prepared by Dougherty.” Dougherty, 612 F. App’x at 642. We thus refer primarily 

to Dougherty.

Case: 15-2902 Document: 003112133980 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/19/2015