The Honorable Mark R. Kravi tz, United Stat es Distri ct Court for the Dist rict of * Connecticut, si tting by desi gnation. 09-34 78-cv Me nd es J un ior

I nt ’l Co . v . B an co d o Br as il

UNITED STA TES COU RT OF AP PEALS FO R T HE SE CO ND CI RC UI T SUMMARY O RDER RU L I NG S B Y S UMM AR Y OR DE R DO N OT HA VE P RE CE DE NT I AL E F F E CT . C I T AT I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORD ER FI LED ON OR A FT ER J ANU ARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P ERM I TTED AND I S GO VERN ED B Y T H IS C O U R T ’S L O C A L R U L E 3 2 .1 .1 A N D F E D E R A L R U L E O F A P P E L L A T E P R O C E D U R E 3 2 .1 . W HEN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORD ER I N A DO CUM ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S COU RT, A P ARTY M US T C I T E E I T HE R T HE F E DE RA L A P P E ND I X OR A N E L E CT RO NI C DA T AB AS E ( W I T H T HE N O TA TI O N “ SUM M A R Y O R D ER ” ) . A PAR TY CI TI N G A SUM M A R Y O R D ER M U ST S ER V E A CO PY O F IT O N A N Y P A R T Y N O T R E P R E S E N T E D B Y C O U N S E L . At a stated Term of

the United Stat es Court of Appeals for the Second Cir cuit, held a t the Daniel Patri ck Moynihan United St ates Courthouse , 500 Pearl Stre et, in the Cit y of New York, on the 1 day of October, two thousand and t en.

st Present: ROSEMAR Y S. POOL ER, PETER W . HALL,

Ci rcu it J ud ges . MARK R. K

RAVITZ, * District Judge

.

_____________________________________________________ MENDES JUN IOR INTERNA TIONAL CO MPANY, Plaintif f-Appellant ,
-v- 09 -34 78 -cv BANCO DO BRA SIL S.A., BB LE ASING CO MPANY,

De fen da nts -A

pp ellees .
Appearing for Appellee: Jay Safer, Locke Lord Bissel l & Liddell , LLP, New York, N.Y

. Appearing for Appellant : David Zaslowsky, Baker & Mc kenzie, LLP, New York, N.Y. (D on ald J. Hayd en , R ob ert

F. Ko hlm an , E ff

ie D . S ilv a, on the br ief ).2

Appeal from the United States Distr ict Court for the Southern Distr ict of New York (Carter, J. ). ON CONSIDERA TION WHEREOF, IT IS HERE BY ORDERED, ADJU DGED, AND DE CREED that th e ju dg m ent of sai d D istric t C ourt b e an d it he reb y is AFFIRMED

. Mendes Inte rnational Com pany appeals from the July 22, 2009 opinion a nd order of the United States DistrictCourt for the Southern Dis trictof New York denying its Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (b) m oti on

to r ein state i ts c om

pla int . T he dis tri ct c ourt p rev iou sly dis m iss ed

Men de s’ co m pla int in Jun e 1 99 8 o n f

orum no n c onve nie ns gro un ds , w iththe co nd iti on that Me nd es c ou ld ap ply to r ein state the co m

pla int if Br azi l re fu sed

to e xe rci se j uri sd ict ion . W e as sum e th e p art ies ’ fam iliar ity with the underlying facts , procedural history, and s pecificati on of issues for review. Men de s o rig ina llyco mm en ced a su it i n N ewYo rk S tat e S up rem e C ourt a ga ins t de fe nd ants B an co do Br asi l, S A and BB -L eas ingCo m

panyin 1 99 6, see kin g a

de clarat ory judgment and m ore than $800 million in da mages based on the defendants’ al leged breac hes of contract , breaches of fiduciary duty and failure t o perform on various loan obligat ions. Defendants removed the case to federal court and moved to dismissed on the grounds of forum non conveniens, ar guing Brazil was amore appropriate forum. Men des Ju nio r In t’l Co . v . B an co do Brasil, S.A. , 1 5 F . S up p. 2d 33 2 (S .D .N .Y . 1 99 8) ( “

Men des I ”). Judge Carte r granted t he motion and dismissed the complaint for forum non conveniens on June 29, 1998. Id. He co nd it io ne d the di smi ss al on(1 ) t he co urts of B ra zi l h av in g j ur is di ct io n t o a dj ud ic at e t he cl ai ms as se rt ed ; ( 2) de fen da nt s a gr ee in g t o app ea r g en er al ly inany a ct io n a ss erti ng th e p re se ntcl ai ms fi led ag ain st i t by

pla int if f i n B raz il; an d (3 ) de fe nd ants w aiv ingjur isd ict ion al d ef en ses as w ell as any statute of limitations defenses i t did not have a t the ti me the com plaint was file d. Id. at 341. Five years l ater, on May 14, 2003, M endes comm enced an acti on in Brazil, butthe Br azi lian c ourts de cli ne d to un de rtake jur isd ict ion . M en de s th enm ov ed to r ein state i ts a cti on

in the Southern Dist rict. Judge Carter found that M endes present ed the Brazil ian courts with a complaint that differed materiall y from the one in the original action before hi m, including identifying the parties differently and structuring t he facts so as to minimize any contacts the parties or the act ion had with Brazi l. The distr ict courtbased its c onclusion on seve ral key ways the Brazil ian complaint differed from the Am erican complaint, i ncluding (i ) suing a different entity - B an co do Br asi l S /ACaym anbranc h, rathe r th anBanc o d o B ras il S /A , a Br azi lian corporati on; (ii) characte rizing i tself as a company without any author ity to actin Brazil; and (iii) asserti ng there were no c ontacts wit h Brazil. Mendes brought i ts motion to reinst ate pursuantto Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), which a llows a court to va cate a pre vious order. We review the deni al of a Rule 60(b)(6) motion for abuse of discret ion. Ac

zel v. La bo nia , 5 84 F. 3d

52 , 6 1 (2 d C ir. 20 09 ). I t is cle ar that R ule 60 (b) (6) is “p rop erl y invo ke d o nly

wh enthe re are e xtr ao rdi nary c irc um stanc es j us tif yin g re lie f” or “ wh en the jud gm ent m aywo rk an e xtr em e an d und ue hards hip .” Ne ma ize r v. Ba ker , 793 F.2d 58, 63 (2d Cir. 1986). The burde n of proof is on the party se eking reli ef from the judgment. Pichardo v. As hc ro ft , 374 F.3d 46, 55 (2d Cir. 2004).3

Un de r th is s tan dard and

wi th t he burde n o n M en de s, it c anno t be sai d th at the dis tri ct court abused i ts discr etion in finding M endes failed to s atisfy the condi tions setforth for rei ns tat em ent by

the dis tri ct c ourt i n th e o rig ina l de cis ion . T he rec ord de m on str ate s th e d istric t court neit her comm itted an e rror of law nor of fact in it s considera tion of the Rule 60(b) (6) m oti on . B eca

us e w e n eed

no t pr oc eed

any f urt he r in our an aly sis to d eci de thi s ca se, we expre ss no opinion on the forum non conveniens arguments rais ed by the part ies. Ac co rdi ng ly, the jud gm ent of the dis tri ct c ourt h ere byis AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT : Cathe rin e O ’H ag anW olf e, Cl erk