FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT OCTOB ER 14 , 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 16325 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 6 1 0 3 0 - C V - C MA B F P I N V E S T M E N T S , I N C ., aF lo r id ac o rp o r a tio n , N E T G A T E S , I N C ., aD e la w a r e c o rp o r a tio n , W I L L I A M G . B R O W N , e t a l., P la in tif f s , L E O G R E E N F I E L D , ac r e d ito ra n d p a r tyin in te r e s t on be ha l f of appr oxi m a t e l y 300 s to c k h o ld e r s o n N e tg a te s , I n c ., P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s B F P I N V E S T M E N T S L I M I T E D , aF l or i dal i m i t e d p a r tn e r s h ip , S U S A N L A S K Y , e t a l.,

D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .2 ________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 14, 2005) B efo re A N D E R S O N , H U L L an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T he di stri ctcourtgrant ed defendant s’ m ot i on t o d i sm i ss , concl ud i ng that G r e e n f i e l d ’ s a c t i o n w a s u n t i me l y . G r e e n f i e l d ap p e a l s . I n J a n u a ry 2 0 0 3 , BFP Investm ent s L i m i t ed (“ B F P L i m i t ed”) fi l ed a pet i t i on for r eorgani za t i on un der chapt er11 of the bank rupt cycode. O n A ug ust5, 20 03 , a bankrup t cyj ud ge ent er ed a n o r d e rc o n f

i rm i n g B F P L i m i t e d ’ s s e c o n d a m e n d e d p l a n o f r e o r g a n i z a t i o n . On A u g u s t 4 , 2 0 0 4 , G r e e n f ie ld f ile d a“c o m p la in t” in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p u r s u a n t to F ed. R . C i v. P . 60 (b) a gai nstB F P L i m i t ed, S usan L as ky, Je ff re y G am bi no , and B arry F ernand ez . T he defendant s m ov ed t o d i sm i ss the “ com pl ai nt , ” a l l egi ng , i nt eral i a, thati tw as un t i m el y. O n N ov em ber 9, 20 04 , the di stri ctcourtagre ed and g ra nt ed th e d efen d an t s’ m o t i o n t o d i sm i ss. O n ap p e a l, G r e e n f

ie ld a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr o n e o u s ly d is m is s e d h is “c o m p la in t” w h ic h s o u g h t to v a c a te th e b a n k ru p tc y c o u r t’s o r d e ro f c o n f irm a tio n . H e c l a i m s tha tthe c our tf a i l e d t o r e c ogni z e tha ta l though F e d. R . B a nkr . 9024Although Greenfield repeate dly cites to the rules a s Fe d.R.Civ.P . 60(b)( 3)(6) , it appear s 1 that heintend s tore fer to Rule60 (b )( 6) . N e vert he le ss, wedis cus s b oth

Rul e60 (b )( 3) and

Rul e 60(b)( 6) infra . 3 re qu i re s thatan ac t i on t o revok e aconfi rm at i on order be fi l ed w i thi n 1 80 days as s pe c i f i e d by 11 U . S . C . § 1144, w he r e r e l i e f i s s oughtunde rR ul e 60( b) ba s e d on f r a ud of the c our t , the l a w doe s noti m pos e t i m e l i m i t s orl i m i tthe pow e rof the c o u r t to c o n s id e rin d e p e n d e n t a c tio n s to r e lie v e ap a r ty f r o m aju d g m e n t. 1 G re enfi el d argues thathi s R ul e 60(b) m ot i on al l eged 29 ac t s of f raud perpetra t ed on the ba nkrupt c y c our t , r e s ul t i ng i n the de f e nda nt s de f

r a udi ng hi m a nd ove r300 s t oc khol de r s , i nve s t or s , a nd of f i c e r s of the i rc a s h a nd e qui ty i n r e a l e s t a t e thr ough th e u se o f th e C h ap t er 1 1 b an k ru p t cy p ro ceed i n g s. G reen fi el d arg u es th atth ese a l l e ga t i ons of

f r a ud unde rR ul e 60( b) ( 6) c ons t i tut e d e xtr a or di na ry gr ounds w a rr a n t i n g r e v o c a t i o n o f th e o r d e ro f

c o n f i rma t i o n . H e c o n t e n d s th a tth e t i me l i m i t s pr ovi de d i n B a nkrupt c y R ul e 9024 a r e notappl i c abl e t o R ul e 60( b) ( 6) c o m p la in ts . A m ot i on t o r e l i e ve apa r ty f r om j udgm e nti s w i thi n the s ound di s c r e t i on of th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. F ir s t W is c o n s in N a t’l B a n k o f M ilw a u k e e v . G r a n d lic h D e v t. C orp. , 56 5 F . 2d 87 9, 88 0 (5th C i r. 19 78 ). U nd erF ed. R . C i v. P . 60 (b) acourtm ay r e lie v e ap a r ty f

r o m af in a l ju d g m e n t o ro r d e rf o r , in te ra lia , “f

r a u d . . ., m i s r e pr e s e nt a t i on, orothe rm i s c onduc tof a n a dve r s e pa r ty , ” or“ a ny othe rr e a s on4

j ust i fy i ng re l i ef

fr om the op er at i on of the j ud gm ent . ” F ed. R . C i v. P . 60 (b)( 3), (b)( 6). T i t l e 11 U ni t ed S t at es C od e S ec t i on 11 44 prov i des that“ [o] n requestof a party i n i nt er es tatany t i m e bef ore 180 days af

t erthe dat e of the entryof the order o f c o n f irm a tio n , a n d a f

te rn o tic e a n d ah e a r in g , th e c o u r t m a y r e v o k e s u c h o r d e rif and o nl y i f s uch o rderw as procured by fraud . ” 11 U . S . C . § 1 14 4; se e a l so In re O ra ng e T re e A ss oc. L t d. , 96 1 F . 2d 14 45 , 14 47 (9th C i r. 19 92 ) ( re qu i ri ng stri ct com pl i ance w i th the 18 0-day t i m e l i m i t at i on for f i l i ng a c om pl ai ntt o revok e a n or de rc onf

i rm i ng ac hapt e r11 pl a n) . F e de r a l R ul e of B a nkrupt c y P r oc e dur e 9024 f ur the rpr ovi de s tha t“ [ r ] ul e 60 F . R . C i v. P . appl i e s i n c a s e s unde rthe C ode e xc e pt th a t . . . ac o m p la in t to r e v o k e a n o r d e rc o n f irm in g ap la n m a y b e f

ile d o n ly w ith in the t i m e a l l ow ed by § 1 14 4. ” F ed. R . B ankr. P . 90 24 . A dd i t i on al l y, the F eder al R ul e s of C i vi l P r oc e dur e appl y t o pr oc e e di ngs i n ba nkrupt c y onl y t o the e xt e nt prov i ded b y the F eder al R ul es of B ankrup t cyP roce du re . F ed. R . C i v. P . 81 (a )( 1); s e e a l s o C hry s l e rF i na nc i a l C orp. v. P ow e , 312 F . 3d 1241, 1243 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( s a m e ) . R ul e s of

pr oc e dur e m a y notm odi f y s ubs t a nt i ve l a w . 28 U . S . C . § 2075. G re enfi el d con ce des that§ 1 14 4 and F eder al R ul e of B ankrup t cyP roce du re 9 0 2 4 to g e th e rr e q u ir e th a t a n a c tio n to r e v o k e ac o n f irm a tio n o r d e rb e f

ile d w ith in the 180- da y pe r i od s pe c i f i e d i n § 1144. G r e e nf

i e l d a r gue s , how e ve r , tha tby f i l i ng a c ause of ac t i on se eki ng re l i ef di re ct l y und erF eder al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du reAppe lla nt’ s mo tio n tostrikepo rtion s o f a pp e lle e ’sbrie f a

nd fo r s anc tio ns , a

nd re qu e st 2 for oral argument aredenied. 5 6 0 ( b ) h is c la im a v o id s th e tim e p r o v is io n s o f § 1 1 4 4 a n d R u le 9 0 2 4 . G r e e n f ie ld o ffers n o st atu t o ry l an g u ag e su p p o rt i n g h i s read i n g o f th e ru l es, an d n o su ch case l a w e xi s t s . T he A dvi s ory C om m i tt e e N ot e s f orR ul e 9024 of

the F e de r a l R ul e s of B a nkrupt c y P r oc e dur e di r e c t l y r e f ut e G r e e nf

i e l d’ s a r gum e nt : “ C l a us e s ( 2) a nd ( 3) of thi s rul e m a ke i tc l e a rtha tthe t i m e pe r i ods e s t abl i s he d by §§ 727( e ) , 1144 a nd 1 3 3 0 o f th e [F ed eral ] C o d e m ay not be c i r c um v e nte d by the i nv oc at i on of F. R . C i v . P . 60(

b) .” F e d .R .B a n k r .P . 9 0 2 4 a d v is o ry c o m m itte e ’s n o te s ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . B e c a us e G r e e nf

i e l d’ s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on w a s notf i l e d w i thi n 180 da y s of

the entryof the confi rm at i on order a s r equi re d b y F eder al R ul e of B ankrup t cy Pr o c e d u r e 9 0 2 4 a n d 1 1 U . S. C. § 1 1 4 4 , w e a f f i rm. AF F I RME D. 2