Afte r e xa m i ni ngthe b r i ef s an d the r ec o r d, we ha ve c o nc l ude d tha t o r ala r g um en t * is u n n ec es sa ry . T h u s t h e a p p ea l is su b m itt ed on th e b rie fs a n d th e re c or d . See F ED . R. A PP . P . 34(a )(2) . 

# United States Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 60 604 Subm i tte d Septem ber23 , 20 10 * De ci ded October20 , 20 10

B efo re IL A N A D IA M O N D R O V N E R, Cir cu i tJudg e T E R E N C E T . E V A N S, Cir cu i tJudg e A N N C L A IR E W IL L IA M S, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 09
- 3415 R A N D A L L R E , P laint if f-A ppell ant,

v. R O S E MAR I E R E a n d D O NN A M. R O B E R T S, D efend a nts-A pp ellees . A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe N or ther n Dis tr i ct o fI l l i noi s, Eas te r n Di vi si o n. N o. 08 C 317 5 Joa n B . G ot ts c h all, Judg e . O R D E R Rand al l and Rose m ar i e Re setup f our tr usts as part ofthei r divo rce to pro vi de f or thei r chi l dren’ s e du cati on, m edi calexpenses , and supp or t. Ros em ar i e a nd the tr ustee , D onn a Rob erts, d isburs ed abou t $26,000 over 3 years to p ay m ed ical bil ls and child su p p ort paym ents, but Rand al l br ought thi s di ver si ty acti on a l l eging tha t they wrong full y invaded th e tr us ts . Afte r the di st r i ctc o ur t di smi ss ed th e co m pl aintf o r l ac ko fj ur i sdi ct i o n a nd r ej e c t e d h i s mo t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r, h e a p p e a l e d . We a ffi r m. NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To be ci ted o nl y in acco rdance w i th F ED . R. A PP . P. 32 .1N o. 09
- 3415 Page 2

T h e d ist ric t c ou rtd ism iss ed R an d all’s ca se on Ju n e 2 2, 20 09 , for lac k of ju ris d ict ion . The c o ur t co nc l ude d tha t i t l ac k ed j ur i sdi ct i o n b ec au se the t r us ts wer e r el at ed to the divo rce pro ceedi ngs underway i n sta te cour t. Ci ti ng Pri nc e s s Li da o f Thur n & Taxis v. Tho m pso n, 205 U . S. 45 6 ( 1939 ) , th e cou rt exp lai ne d that the fed eral courts cou ld n ot aff ord Ra nda l l r el i efb ec au se i t woul d i nt er fer e wi ththe pr o per ty( th e tr us ts ) o ve r whi chthe Illino is c ou rt s a lre ad y h ad j u ris d ict ion . On Jul y 2 4, 20 09, Randallas ked the di str i ct c ourtto r eco nsi der, ar gui ng tha t P rinc ess Li da shoul d not be co ntro l l i ng be cause that case i nvol ved an a cti on bya tr ustee bene fi ci ar y, an d he was no t a be ne fi ci ar y . OnAugus t 24, 2 00 9, the di st r i ctc o ur t di sa g r ee d, r ei te r at i ng that Pri nc e s s Li da appl i ed be ca us e ac ti o ns i nv o l vingthe r es o fa t r us t m us t be b r o ug hti n the cour t e xerci si ng j uri sdic ti on o verthatr es. The c ourtal so rej ecte d any sug ges ti on that Rand al l co uld m ai ntai n an ac ti on f orbr each offi du ci ar y duty because o nl y a tr ust benefi ci ar y e nj oye d such a r i ght, notthe partythatcr eat ed the tr ust. On a ppea l, he c o nt en ds th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t ab us ed i ts di sc r et i o n b y mis co ns tr ui ng the a l l ega ti ons i n hi s co m pla i nt and w ro ngfull y a pp l i ed the Pri nc e s s Li da d oc tr in e t o b ar h is su i t. F o r the fi r stt i m e, he no w sug g es ts tha t hi s ac ti o n was f o r b r ea cho fc o nt r ac t—an in p e rs o n a m ac ti o n— an d thus the I l l i no i s co ur ts ’ j ur i sdi ct i o n o ve r the t r us ts di d no t pr ev en t th e fe d er al c ou rtfrom ex er c isin g jur isd ict ion . Atth e o u t s e t, we n o t e i n r e s p o n s e t o R a n d a l l ’ s s u g g e s t i o n i n h i s r e p l y b r i e f, th a twe lac k jur isd ict ion to rev iew th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d ism iss al of t h e u n d er lyin g c om p lain t. Ra nda l l fi l ed hi s no ti ce o fa ppea l o n S ept embe r 2 4, 2 00 9, wel l
-be y o nd the t i m e i n whi chhe c ou ld ap p ea l th e u n d er lyin g d ism iss al. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) . An d we h a v e a l r e a dy rul ed i n an i nter i m o rderthatthi s a pp eali s l i m i ted to r evi ew o fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s Au gust 24 th ord er d en yin g R an d all’s m ot ion to rec on sid er . See R e v. R e, N o. 09
- 3415 , Doc. # 20 ( 7th C ir. D ec . 17, 20 09 ). W e a l so note thatRandalldi d not fi l e hi s m oti on t o re consi der unti l m or e than ten d ays after the j ud gm en t, so w e treat it as a m otion un d er Fed eral Ru le ofCivil Proc ed ure 60 (b ). See, e.g., Sera

finn v. Lo ca l 72 2, Int’l B hd . of Team ster, C ha uffeu rs, W a reho usem en & Helpers o f A m ., 597 F. 3d 908, 91 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) . Thi s i s s i gni fi cant because we re vi ew a dist ri ct cour t’ s deni alo fa Rule 60(b) m oti on under a n extr em el y defer enti alabuse
- of
- disc re ti on st an d ar d . See, e . g., Eskridge v. C ookCo unty, 577F.3d 80 6, 80 8-0 9 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ). R u le 6 0(b ) is an extr aor dinar y r em edy thati s no t desi gned to address l ega l er ro rs m ade by the dist ri ct c ou rt ; i t is n ota su b st itu te for a n ap p ea l. Se e, e . g. , St ol l e rv. PureFis hi ng Inc . , 52 8 F . 3d 478, 48 0 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); Gle as h v . Yus wak, 308 F.3d 75 8, 76 1 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ); M ar q ue s v. Fe d. Re s e r ve Bank of Chi . , 2 86 F . 3d 10 14, 1 01 7- 18 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 2) . T he di st r i ctc o ur t m i g htha ve b ee n r i g htN o. 09
- 3415 Page 3

an d m i g htha ve b ee n wr o ngr ej ec tingthe a r g um en ts i n Ra nda l l ’ s Rul e 60 ( b) mot i o n, b utthe cour t di d not abuse i ts disc re ti on wh en i t deni ed Rand al l ’ s a tte m pt to use the m oti on t o lau n c h w h at am ou n ts to an im p ro p er ap p ea l. Se eBe l l v. Eas t m an Kodak Co. , 21 4 F . 3d 798, 800-01 (7th Cir. 2000). AF F I RMED.