The Honorable Ca rol Bagley Amon, U nited States Distr ict Judge for the Eastern District of * New Y ork, sitt

ing by de signation.
1 09- 2346- cv S u r a c v . Ca v a l r y P o r t f

o l i o S e r v i c e s , LL C UN ITED STA

TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT 

## SUMMA RY ORDER Rulings by s umm ary order do not have pr ecedential effect. Citat ion to sum mary or ders f i l e d a f t e r Ja n u a r

y 1, 2 0 0 7 , i s p e r m i t t e d a n d i s g o v e r n e d b y t h i s c o u r t ’ s Lo c a l Ru le 32.1 and F ed er al Ru le of App ella te P r oc ed ur e 32 .1. In abrie f o r ot he r pape r inwh ic h li tig an t c it es a su m m ar y o r de r , i n e ach pa r ag r ap h i n whi cha ci ta ti onap pe ar s, a t l eas t o ne ci ta ti onm us t e it he r be to th e Federal Append ix or be accompanied by t he notat ion: “(sum mary o rder).” A party citin g a s um ma ry order must serve a copy of t hat summ ary ord er tog ether wit h the pap er in which the summary order is cited on any party not repr esented by counsel unless the summ ary or de r is a vaila bl e i n a n el ect r on ic da ta ba se wh ic h is pu bl ic ly acc essi bl e wi th ou t pa ym en t o f f

ee (such as the datab ase available at h t tp : / / w w w . c a 2
. u s c o u r t s . g o v/ ). If no copy is served by r eas onof th e av ai la bi li ty

of th e o r de r

onsu cha d at ab ase , t he ci ta ti onm ust i nc lu de r ef er en ce to th at database and th e docket num ber of t he case in which the or der was entered. At a stated term of the Un ited Stat es Court of Appeals for t he Second Circuit , held at th e Daniel Pat rick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl St reet, in t he City of New York, onth e se ven te en thda

y o f D ece m be r , t

wo th ou san d n in e. PR E SE NT: J OS É A. C AB R ANES ,

B A R R I NGT ON D. P AR KER ,

Circuit Jud ges , C AROL B AGL EY A MON , *

District Judge.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x D AVOR S URAC , Pl aint iff -A ppe lla nt , v. No . 09 -2 346 -c v C AV AL R Y P OR T F OL I O S ER VI CES , LL C, C AV AL R Y SPV I, LL C,, Defenda nts-App ellees

, E XPERI AN , T R A NS UN I ON , E QU I FA X , AT &T C O RP ., Defenda nts.2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x CO UN SE L F OR

AP P ELLAN T: J O S HUA N. B LEI CHM AN , Sp r in g Valley, NY.
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES: J ONA T HA N E L L I OT , Zel des , N eed le & C oo pe r, Bri dg ep ort , C T. Appea l from a judgment of the United States Distr ict Court for the Eastern Dis trict of New York (B r ianM . Co gan , Judge

).
UPON CONSIDERAT ION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJ UDGED, AN D D ECREED th at t

he j ud gm ent

of th e Di s tr ict Cou r t i s her eby AFFIRMED. Plaintiff Davor Surac (“plaintiff” or “Surac”) appe als from the May 11, 2009 order of the Distr ict Court denying

Surac’s motion to reopen his case alleg ing viola tions of

the Fair Debt Collect io n P r act ices Act agai ns t, int

er ali a , defendants Ca valry Portfolio Services, LLC and Ca valry SPV I, LLC (jointly “defendants” or “Ca valry”). On a ppeal, plaintiff argues that the Distr ict Court erred in denying pl aintiff’s mot ion to reopen. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and pr oce du r al h is to ry of

this cas e. Any request to modify a district court judgment mus t be filed within ten da ys of the entry of th at j ud gm ent . F ed. R. Civ . P . 59 (e ). I f amo ti onto s et

as id e a ju dgm ent

fo r any r eas onother

th an cler ical er r or is filedmo r e t hante n d ays af te r th e en tr y of th at j ud gem ent , as hap pen ed i n thi s cas e, “it is pr op erly co ns id er ed a m ot io n u nd er Fe d. R. Civ . P . 60 (b ). ” Branum v. Clark , 92 7 F .2d698 , 70 4 (2 d Ci r . 19 91)

.
Purs uant to Rule 60(b), a motion for r elief from a judgment or order may be granted if there is “m is tak e, i nadver te nce , s urpr is e, o r excu s abl e ne gle ct ” or

fo r “an y other

r eas onth at j us ti fi es r eli ef .” F ed. R. Civ . P . 60 (b )( 1) , ( 6) . T hi s r eli ef is availab le o nly in“ex cep ti on al ci r cum s tan ces .” Ruotolo v. City of New York , 51 4 F .3d184 , 19 1 ( 2d Cir . 20 08) . We r evi ew anor der of th e di s tr ict
cou r t d eny

in g a Rule 6 0(

b) mo ti onfo r

abu s e of di s cr et io n. See SEC v. McNulty , 13 7 F .3d732 , 73 8 (2 d Ci r . 19 98) ; cf. Sims v. Blot , 534 F.3d 117, 13 2 (2d Cir. 2008) (“A di str ict court has abused its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the lawor on a clea rly erroneous ass essment of th e evi den ce o r

r end er ed a d ecis io n that

cann ot be l ocat ed w

ithi n the r ang e of

per mi s s ib le decisions.” (internal alteration, c itations, and quotation marks omitted)). Plaintiff argues that the District Court’s r efusal to reopen proceedings “wa s err oneous and an ab us e of

di s cr et io n. ” P l. B r . 6. Pl ain ti ff

, h owe ver , s eem s to challen ge o nly the M ar ch 1 1, 2 009
or der of th e Di s tr ict Cou r t d eny

in g Su r ac’s mo ti onto enf

or ce the s et tl eme nt

agr eem ent

—anor der from which plaintiff has not appeale d. With respect to the May 11, 2 009 order denying his motion, fr om whi ch p lai nt

if f d oes app eal, he m akes no s ho win g of “ex cep ti on al ci r cum s tan ces ” that would3

war r ant r eli ef un der Rul e 60 (b ). Acco r di ngl

y, we con clu de that

th e Di s tr ict Cou r t did no t e r r

in de ny in g S ura c’ s mo ti on to r eo pe n p roc ee di ng s.
CONCLUSI ON

For t he re a son s sta te d a bo ve , t he ju dg me nt o f th e D ist ric t C ou rt i s AF F IRME D

.
FO R T HE CO URT : Ca therine O’Haga n Wolfe, C lerk By:___________________________