2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-17-2007 

# M al h an v . Anthon y Robbins C o P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-3332

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " M al h a n v . An thon y Ro b b in s C o " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 427. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/427NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 06- 3332

________________ CAPT. SURENDER MALHAN; AL I NA MALHAN, Ap pe lla

nts v. TH E A NT HONYRO B B I

NS C OM PAN I ES, Robbins R esea

rch I nternational, Inc.

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

For t he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i v. N o. 05- cv- 05951) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le W ill iam J. M a rtin i

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay14, 2007 BEFORE: BA RRY , CH AG AR ES a n d RO TH, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed: Sept ember 17, 2007)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM Pr o s e appe l l ant s C apt . Sur enderM al han and A l i na M al han 

### a ppe a lthe or de r s of2



### the Uni t e d St at e s Di s tr i c t Court for the Di s tr i c t

of Ne w J e r s e y , di s m i s s i ng the i r c om pl a i nt alleg in g b reacho f

co n tract an do th er claim s, an dd enyin g th eir p o st-j u d g m en t m o tio n . W e l a c k j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t he di s m i s s al of t he compl ai nt ; w e w i l l aff i r m t he or der d e n y in g th e p o s t-

ju d g m e n t m o tio n . 

### I. The Ma l hans e nr ol l e d by s i gne d c ontr a c t

i n thr e e m

ul t i - day s e m i nar s offe r e d by Ap pell ee Ro bb ins Res earc h Inter nati on al(“ Ro bb ins” ). Th e Mal hans paid a c om bined f ee o f $ 2 0 ,4 4 0 . T h e co n tract o utlin es sp ecif ic p ro cedures b y

w h ichin d iv idu als diss at is fied with a s eminar could see k a re fund . The Malhans m ai ntai n that they were in f o rm edw h enth ey

reg isteredf

o r a D ecem

b er 2 0 0 4 sem in ar th at th ey w o u ldb e ab le to sit to g eth er durin g th e sem in ar, b ut up o narriv al th ey w ere in f o rm edth at co up les w o u ld no t be pla ce d tog ether i n the sam e group . Altho ug h sta ff as ked the Malhans t o separ at e, they were permitte d to sit

together duri ng the fir st

two d ay s of the se m inar . On the thir d day , s e m i nar

s t a ff woul d not

pe rm i t the Ma l hans t o s i t

t oge the r , and r athe r

than be sep arated , th ey

ch o se to leav e th e sem in ar. T hree m o n th s later, th e M alh an s so u g h t a ref un df ro m R o b b in s p erso nn el. T h ey d idn o t receiv e a ref

un d . On Nove m

be r 9, 2005, the Ma l hans fi l e d the i r c om pl a i nt i n the Supe r i or

Court of N ewJersey

seek in g f u ll ref un do f th e enro llm en t f

ees. T h ey

also seekap p ro x im ately $62, 000 for

s i x day s of l os t

wa ge s , $1, 000, 000 c om

pe ns at i on for

m e nt a la gony

due t o the i nabi l i ty t o att e nd the l e c t

ur e s and the hum i l i at i on of l e avi ng the s e m i nar , $2, 000, 000 for3



### stra in onm arit alre lati on s andother a ss orte d d am ages , andov er $1 0,00 0,00 0 in d am ages fo r l oss of o pp ortunity

to incr ea se thei r busines s’ s value. Robbi ns fi l e d anot i c e of r e m ova lt o the Uni t e d St at e s Di s tr i c t Court for the Di s tr i c t of Ne w J e r s e y

on De c e m

be r 22, 2005, pur s uant

t o 28 U. S. C. § 1441( a ) on d iv ersity g ro un d s. R o b b in s a lso m o v e d to d ism iss f o r f a ilu re to sta te a c laim p u rsu a n t to R ul e 12( b) ( 6) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tal l ow ed t he M al hans t o amend t hei rcompl ai nt , and gr ant ed t he mot i on t o di s m i s s on M ar ch 24, 2006. O n A pr i l 13, 2006, t he M al hans m a iled a lette r to th e D istric t C o u rt th a t co n tain e d se c tio n s e n tit led “ M o tio n to R econs i der ” and “ M ot i on t o A m end”; t hatdocument w as fi l ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our ton A pr i l 18, 2006. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed t he M al hans ’ m ot i ons on J une 9, 2006. T he M al han s fi l ed thei r not i ce of app eal on Jul y7, 20 06 . B ecause thi s appea l present s a t hr es hol d ques t i on of t i m el i nes s , t he C l er k di r ect ed t he par t i es t o addr es s t he t i m el i nes s of t he appe al i n t hei rbr i efs . R obbi ns cont ends t hatt he M al hans ’ not i ce of appea l w as not t i m el yfi l ed 

### . II . W e f ir s t a d d re s s th e is s u e o f o u r j u ri s d ic tio n . 

### Pur s uant t o Fe de r a lRul e of Ap pell at e Proce dure 4(a) (1)( A), the Malhans werere qu ir ed to file thei r notic e of app ea l wi thi n 30 day s a ft e r

e ntry of the Di s tr i c t

Court ’ s fi na lor de r . Whi l e at i m e l y m ot i on for r e c ons i de r at i on w i l l t ol l t he t i me f orfi l i ng a no t i c e of

a pp e a l , s e e Fe d. R. A pp . P. 4( a) ( 4) ( A ) , t he M al hans ’ m ot i on w as unt i m el y . R ece nt l y , t he Supr eme C our tconfi r m ed4

t hata cour tof appe al s l acks j ur i s di ct i on t o ent ert ai n an appe al t hati s fi l ed out s i de of the t i m e per i od t hati s s t at ed i n Feder al R ul e of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e 4( a) . See B ow l es v. R us s el l , 127 S. C t . 2360, 2362- 63 ( 2007) . W e maym ake no e xcept i on. See i d. at2366 (e x p re ss lyo v e rru lin g C o u rt’s p rio r d e c isio n s p u rp o rtin g to a u th o riz e “ e q u itab le e x c e p tio n s to ju risd ictio n a l re q u ire m e n ts” ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e d o n o t h a v e ju risd ictio n to re v ie w th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r d is m is s in g th e c o m p la in t. T he r emai ni ng i s s ue i s w het herw e have aut hor i t yt o cons i dert he appe al fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng t he M al hans ’ pos t - j udgm entm ot i on. T hough t he D i s t r i ct C our tcons t r ued t he mot i on as an unt i m el yR ul e 59( e) m ot i on, w e bel i eve the mot i on m ay be cons t r ued as one fi l ed pur s uantt o R ul e 60( b) ( 6) . A s t he or derdeny i ng r el i ef unde r R u le 60 (b) is a f

inal o rde r t h at m ay b e re v iew ed ind ep en d en tl yfro m the D istri ct C o u rt ’s or dert hatdi s m i s s ed t he compl ai nt , w e have j ur i s di ct i on i n t hi s m at t er . T he s cope of our r evi ew i s l i m i t ed t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of t he R ul e 60( b) m ot i on. III . 

### W e r e vi e w the Di s tr i c t

Court ’ s de t e rm i nat i on unde r Rul e 60(b) for

abus e of d iscretio n . S ee A h m edv . D rag o v ich , 2 9 7 F .3 d2 0 1 , 2 0 9 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 2 ). O n ly

“ e xtr a or di nary , and s pe c i a l ” c i r c um s t anc e s warr ant r e l i e f fr om

judgm e nt . Se e Pr i dge n v. Sh anno n, 38 0 F .3d 7 21 , 728 (3d C ir . 200 4). The Di s tr i c t

Court c orr e c t l y de ni e d the Ma l hans ’ m ot i on. I n t hei rm ot i on, t he M al hans do notpr es entanyar gum ent s r el at ed t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on t hatt hey5

fai l ed t o m eett he l egal r equi r ement s t o s t at e a c aus e of a ct i on forbr eac h of contr actor ot her w i s e expl ai n w hyt he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d gr antt hem re l i ef f r om j udgm ent . T he M a lh a n s’ s e n se th a t th e yw e re w ro n g e d , w h ile u n d e rsta n d a b le, is n o t a c o g n iza b le b a sis forR ul e 60( b) r el i ef. O n appea l , t he M al hans ar gue t hatt heyactual l yenr ol l ed i n t hr ee sep ara te sem inars, an d att en d ed o n lyo n e. T h is asserti o n ca n n o t fo rm the b asis fo r a b rea ch o f c o n tr ac t cl aim co n ce rnin g the re fu n d p roc ed u re, as there is a sep ara te pro ce d u re des cr i bed i n t he contr actforper s ons w i s hi ng t o t er m i nat e t hei r“enr ol l m ent ” af t erhavi ng at t ended f

ew ert han al l t hr ee s emi nar s . T he M al hans do notal l ege thatt heyfol l ow ed ( or att em p ted to fo ll o w ) t h ese p roc ed u res, or tha t R o b b ins b rea ch ed the c o n tr ac t w ith reg ard to th e m . A c c o rd in g ly , ev e n if th is a ss e rtio n h a d b e e n p re se n ted to th e D istric t C o u rt, i t w o u ld n o t h a v e p ro v id e d a b a s is f o r g ra n tin g R u le 6 0 (b )( 6 ) r e lie f. T her efor e, w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i dert he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng t he M al han s’ com plai nt, bu tw i l l affirm t he D i st ri ctC ou rt ’s order t hat deni ed the M al han s’ p o s t- ju d g m e n t m o tio n .