2007 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-20-2007

In Re: Nazi Era Case

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 06-3655

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re: Nazi Era Case " (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 714.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/714
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3655

___________

IN RE: NAZI ERA CASES AGAINST

 GERMAN DEFENDANTS LITIGATION

RONALD H. MANDOWSKY;

SETH B. FELDMAN, as the Co-Executors

of the Estate of Ferdinand Nacher;

RONALD H. MANDOWSKY, as Representative

of the Heirs of the Estate of

Ignatz Nacher,

 Appellants

 v.

DRESDNER BANK AG

___________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civil Nos. 00-cv-04986, 98-cv-04104)

District Judge: The Honorable William G. Bassler

___________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

July 11, 2007

Before: RENDELL, AMBRO, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: July 20, 2007)
2

___________

OPINION OF THE COURT

___________

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

Appellants Ronald H. Mandowsky, and Seth B. Feldman, as the

Co-Executors of the Estate of Ferdinand Nacher and Ronald H. Mandowsky, as the 

Representative of the Heirs of the Estate of Ignatz Nacher, appeal the District Court's

denial of their Motion for Relief from Judgment filed pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 60(b). 

The District Court specified three reasons for denying the Appellants’ 60(b) motions: (1)

Rule 60(b) was not designed to release a litigant from a freely chosen litigation strategy;

(2) Rule 60(b) is not available when granting relief would ultimately prove futile; and (3)

broader public interests would not be forwarded or enhanced by granting relief under the

rule. After thorough study of the briefs filed by the parties, as well as the record and

transcripts of hearings conducted in the District Court, we will affirm essentially for the

reasons stated by the District Court. The facts and procedural history of this case are well

known to the parties and the Court, and it is not necessary that we restate them here. 

The reasons why we write an opinion of the Court are threefold: to instruct

the District Court, to educate and inform the attorneys and parties, and to explain our

decision. We use a not-precedential opinion in cases in which a precedential opinion is

rendered unnecessary because the opinion has no institutional or precedential value. See

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Internal Operating Procedure
(I.O.P.) 5.3. Under the usual circumstances when we affirm by not-precedential opinion

and judgment, we briefly set forth the reasons supporting the court's decision. In this case,

however, we have concluded that neither a full memorandum explanation nor a

precedential opinion is necessary. Judge Bassler's ruling is a thorough statement of his

reasoning and fully supports his order. No further refutation of the Appellants’ allegations

of error is necessary.

Hence, we believe it unnecessary to further opine, or to offer additional

explanations and reasons to those given by the District Court. It is sufficient to say that,

essentially for the reasons given by the District Court in its opinion dated the 6th day of

July, 2006, we will affirm.

3