N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M ELISSA STR

AFFORD; C AR OL JAC QUEZ; DAVID M A TTHEW S, JR ., on be hla f of the m se l ve s a nd a l l othe r pe rsons simila

rly situa te d, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. ELI LILLY AND C OM PANY, a n India na c orporation De fe nda

nt-Appe l le e . No. 18-56064 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-09366-SVW -M AN
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for C e ntra l C a lifornia , Los Ange le s Ste phe n V. W ilson, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 6, 2020, Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : WATFORD a

nd B ENNETT, C i rc uit Judge s, a nd R AKOFF, ** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED
JAN 16 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. * * The Honora

b le Je d S. R a

koff, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.This a ppe a l a rise s from a puta tive c la ss a c tion la

wsuit a ga inst de fe nda

nt Eli Lilly an d C om pa ny (“ L illy ” ) for a lle ge d ha

rm s re late d to its marke ting a nd la be ling of an a ntide pre ssa

nt drug. Afte r re c e iving a se rie s of a dve rse rulings a t the distric t
c ourt le ve l, pla i ntiffs volunta rily dism i sse d the ir c la im s to ta ke a dva nta ge of the ne xisting Ninth C i rc uit la

wa llowing plaintiffs to a

ppe a l lowe r c ourt rulings by volunta rily dism issing the ir c l a im s with pre judic e . Howe ve r, a fte r an inte rve ning Supre m e C ourt de c ision, Bak e r v . Mic rosoft C

orp. , 137 S. C t. 1702 (2017), inva lida t e d this volunta

ry dism issa l ta c t ic and de prive d the Ninth C irc uit of jurisdic tion ove r the ir a

ppe a l, pla intiffs the n

sought to re o pe n the ir c a se by filing in the d istric t c o urt a

m otion under Fe d. R . C iv. P. 60(b)(6). Pla intiffs now a ppe a l the distric t c o urt’ s de n ia l of tha t m o tion, whic h we re vie w unde r an a buse of disc re tion sta nda rd. Buc k v . Dav is , 137 S. C t. 759, 777 (2017). In orde r to obta in re lie f unde r R ule 60(b)(6) pla intiffs m

u st de m onstra

te the
e xiste nc e of “ ‘ e xtra o rdina ry c irc um sta

nc e s’ justify ing the re ope ning of a fina l judgm e nt.” Gonzale

z v . C rosby , 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005). This c ourt’ s re c e nt de c ision in

He nson v . Fide lity

N ational Financ ial, Inc

. , 943 F.3d 434 (9th C ir. 2019), de m onstra

te s tha t pla intiffs ha

ve fa ile d to m ake suc h

a showing he re . In He nson , a lthough this c ourt he ld tha t the c ha nge in la wre pre s e nte d by Bak

e r
c onstitute d a

n e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e justify ing R

ule 60(b)(6) re l ie f in tha

t
2c a se , it a lso e m pha siz e d tha

t R ule 60(b)(6) a

n a l y s is re quire s a “ c a se -by -c a s e inquiry . . . c a ptur[ing] a ll of there le v ant c irc um sta nc e s.” Id. at

445-46. 1 M ate ria l diffe re nc e s be t

we e n the fa c ts of He nson and the pre se nt c a se de m onstra te tha t sim ila r re lie f is not wa

rrante d he re . Unlike the volunta

ry dism issa l in H

e nson that wa s stipula

te d to by both pa rtie s , the volunta

ry dism issa l in this c a se wa s ve he m e ntly c onte ste d by the de fe nda n t. This de m onstra

te s tha t pla i ntiffs “ knowingly

riske d pe rm ane nt fina lity ,” be c a use Lilly indic ate d “ its position would be tha t the c a se wa s e nt ire l y ove r if the re wa s no a

ppe lla te jurisdic tion.” Id. at 448. Inde e d, the pla intiffs the m s e lve s
a c knowle dge d tha

t a la c k of jurisdic tion would en d the i r c a se in a distric t c ourt brie f. M ore ove r, Lilly ’ s opposition, whe n c ouple d with thefiling of the Bak e r
c e rtiora ri pe tition prior to the

granting of thevolunta

ry dism issa l, m a

k e s c le ar that pla i ntiffs “ should ha

ve known tha

t the la w m ight c ha

n ge in a n unfa vora ble wa y .” Id. at 447. In short, the

re c ord re ve a ls tha

t pla intiffs’ c h oic e to m ove for a volunta ry dism issa l, unlikethe pla intiffs’ a c tions in He n son , wa s the kind of “ fre e , c a lc ulat e d, de libe rate c hoic e [] . . . not to be re lie ve d from ” through a R ule 60(b)(6)

1 Furthe rm ore , He nson , by re i te rating tha

t this c ourt’ s a

pplic ation of six fa c t ors in Phe lps v . Alame ida , 569 F.3d 1120 (9th C ir. 2009), “wa s not m e ant to ‘ i m pose a rigid or e xha

ustive c h e c klist’ ” for e va luating R ule 60(b) c la im s ba se d on a c ha nge in la w, pre c lude s pla intiffs’ argum e nt tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d by fa iling to e xplic i tly

a pply the Phe lps fa c tors. He nson , 943 F.3d a t 445. 3m otion. Ac k

e rmann v . Unite d State

s , 340 U.S. 193, 198 (1950). For the s e , a nd othe r re a sons, thedistric t c ourt’ s de nia l of R ule 60(b)(6) re lie f wa s not a n a buse of disc re tion. Pla intiffs’ a lte rnative argum e nt tha t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion by de ny ing R

ule 60(b) re lie f ba se d

on Dav idson v

. K

imbe rly -C

l ark C orp. , 889 F.3d 956, 963 (9th C ir. 2018), is no m ore suc c e ssful. Pla intiffs a rgue tha t Dav idson
c onstitute s a

c ha nge in la w justify ing re ope n ing the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of its injunc tive and de c la

ratory re lie f c la im s be c a

use Dav idson c la

rifie d tha t “ a pre v iously

de c e ive d c onsum e r m ay

have sta nding to se e k a

n injunc tion a ga inst fa lse a d ve rtising or la

be ling, e ve n though the

c onsum e r now knows or suspe c ts tha t the a dve rtising wa s fa lse at the tim e of the origina l purc ha se . ” Id. at 969. It is not a t
a ll c l e ar, howe ve r, whe the r suc h a holding a c tua lly

unde rm ine s the distric t c ourt’ s
c onc lusion in the i nsta

nt c a se tha

t pla intiffs la c ke d sta

nding to se e k injunc tive and de c la ratory re lie f. This c ourt ha s he ld tha t doubt a bout whe the r a

c h ange in la

w would im pa c t the origina l opinion we ighs “ he avily ” a g a i nst R ule 60(b) re lie f,
re nde ring thedistric t c o urt’ s opinion re a s ona ble
. J one s v . Ry an , 733 F.3d 825, 840 (9th C ir. 2013); se e also Lope z v . Ry an , 678 F.3d 1131, 1137 (9th C ir. 2012).

4Fina lly , this C c urt la c ks jurisdic tion to c onduc t the re v ie w of c e rta i n of the

distric t c o urt’ s de c isions tha t pre c e de d the volunta

ry dism issa l tha

t the pla intiffs
now se e k to substa

ntive l y atta c k. The Supre m e C o urt ha s he ld tha t “ an a ppe a l from de nia l of R

ule 60(b) re lie f doe s not bring up the unde rly ing judgm e nt for re vie w.” Brow d e r v . Dir., De

p’t of C orr. of Illinois , 434 U.S. 257, 263 n.7 (1978). The Ninth C irc uit ha s re c ogniz e d this princ iple in m ultiplec a se s. Se e

, e .g. , Molloy

v . W ilson , 878 F.2d 313, 315 (9th C ir. 1989); Harman v
. Harpe r , 7 F.3d 1455, 1458 (9th C ir. 1993). Ac c ordingly , we do not re vie w the m e rits of thedistric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of pla intiffs’ c la i m for injunc tive and de c la

rat ory re lie f, or its fa ilure to gran t the ir re que s t to a

m e nd the ir c o m

pla int. AFFIRM E D.

5