2005 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
5-11-2005 

# C ons tr D ri l ling Inc v

. C hu sid
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 . 03-3786

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

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 git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2005 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 git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . 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
" C on s tr Dr i l l in g Inc v

. C husid " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1218. h tt p://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1218NOT 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. 03- 3786
CO NSTRU CTI ON DR I LLI NG , I NC
. , THO M AS R. CRO FTS , STEP HEN L. AB ASH ER

v . E U G E N E G . C H U S ID ; B O R IS G . C H U S ID ; S V E T L A N A B . C H U S ID , a /k /a L a n a C h u s id , a /k /a S v e ltl a n a Iv a n o v ; G R E G O R Y K . C H U S ID ; E U G E N E B E N D E R ; A L F R E D K R U G E R , a/k /a A d o lf K ru g e r; M I C H A E L SW A R T Z ; I N T L FI N H O L D I N G S, d/b/ a C a rib b e a n B a n k o f C o m m e rc e , a/k /a I n tl F in H o ld in g s; C A R IB B E A N B A N K O F C O M M E R C E ; G L O B A L U N D E R W R IT E R S ; T H E W O R L D W ID E T R A D IN G G R O U P O F C O M P A N IE S , IN C ., a / k / a Wo r l d Wi d e T r a d i n g Gr o u p , I n c . ; I E I E C WOR L D HQ C O R P , a/k /a I E IE C In c G rp C o , a/k /a I m p o rt E x p o rt I n t e r n a t i o n a l En g i n e e r i n g Co
. ; ALL AM ERI CAN SP ORTS BAR & G R IL L , a /k /a T h e R u s s ia n W h ite H o u s e R e s ta u ra n t, I n c ., LI BERTY I NTL C AN AD A; AM AD ON
- RD C, I NC
. ; SM DM & E LTD; W OR LD U S F IN S E R , a /k /a W o rl d U S ; E U G E N E H . C H A N C E ; J A M E S H
. CH ANC E ; P L ANAR , S
. A. ; NI KOL AY MATT E V NI KOL OV BO RI S G. CH US I D, A ppel l ant

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

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D
. C
. N o. 99- 3352) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le W ill iam H . W a lls

A r gued N ovember 1, 20042 B efore: A L ITO , F U E N T E S , and B E C K E R , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: M ay11, 2005)

E r i c R
. B r es l i n ( A r gued) Dua n e M o r r i s LLP 744 B r oad St r eet , Sui t e 1200 N ew ar k, N ew J er s ey07102- 3889 AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L ANT T hom as W ei s enbec k M i chae l C onnol l y( A r gued) B res sl er, A m ery , & R oss P. O
. B ox 1980 M or r i s t ow n, N ew J er s ey07962 ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEES

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge. D efe ndant
- A ppel l antB or i s C hus id ap p ea ls an o rde r of the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt of N ew Jersey , deny i ng hi s m ot i on m ade pur s uantt o Fed. R
. C i v. P. 60( b)
. T he mot i on i ncl uded a r eques t for a s t ay of a j udgm entent er ed aga i ns thi m bya D i s t r i ctC our ti n T exas in a d iff e re n t, b u t related , lega l acti o n . W e a ff irm the d ec isi o n o f th e N ew Jerse yC o u rt deny i ng C hus i d’ s m ot i on.3 I . FACTS C hus i d and mem ber s of hi s fami l yw er e embr oi l ed i n t w o di ffe r ent fi nanci al s chemes gi vi ng r i s e t o t w o s epar at e leg al a ct i ons . O ne ac t i on, comm ence d byA ppel l ees T hom as C r oft , C ons t ruct i on D r i l l i ng I nc. , and St ephen A bs her ( col l ect i vel yr efe r r ed t o her ei naft eras “C ons t ruct i on D r i l l i ng”) , w as fi l ed i n t he D i s t r i ct C our t of N ew J er s eyand compl ai ned t hat C hus i d, and mem ber s of hi s fami l y , u s e d s ham cor por at i ons t o defr aud C ons t ruct i on D r i l l i ng. T he o t her act i on , com m enced byt he S ecuri t i es and E xch ang e C om m i ssi on (SE C ), w as a
r ece i ver s hi p act i on fi l ed i n t he U ni t ed S t at es D i s t r i ct C our t for t he N or t her n D i s t r i ctof Texas and w as r el at ed t o a pyr ami d s cheme i n w hi ch m ember s of t he C hus i d fami l yw er e i nvol ved.

A . T he N ew Jers ey A ct i on I n J ul y1999, C ons t ruct i on D r i l l i ng comm ence d an ac t i on i n t he D i s t r i ctC our tof N ew Je rse y(“ th e N e w Je rse yC o u rt” ) a g a in s t m e m b e rs o f th e C h u sid f

a m ily , inc lu d in g B o ris C hus i d, and compani es ow ned byt he fa m i l y( “the N ew J er s eyA ct i on”)
. T h e b asis of t he compl ai ntis tha t the C hus i d fami l yus ed s ham cor por at i ons i n or dert o s t eal m oneyfr om C ons t ruct i on D r i l l i ng. Speci fi cal ly , the C hus i ds cr eat ed a “ bank” i n w hi ch C ons t ruct i on D r i l l i ng “depos i t ed” money , onl yt o have i t di ver t ed t hough ot her s ham corpor at i ons fort he fa m il y ’s be n ef

it
. T h e N ew Jerse yC o u rtim m ed iat elyg ran ted a m o ti o n to f ree ze the f

am il y ’s
asse ts an d to attach ce rt ain c o m m erc ial an d reside n ti al pro p erti es loca ted in N ew Jerse y . In D ecem ber 200 0, C on st ruct i on D ri l l i ng fi l ed a m oti on for sum m aryj ud gm ent on i t s cl ai m s,Th e re c ord d oe s n ot d e fi nethi s te rm . 1 4 w h ich w as o p p o sed b y the C h u sids. T h e N ew Jerse yC o u rtd en ied C o n stru cti o n D ri ll ing ’s
s um m ar yj udgm entm ot i on agai ns tC hus i d, exce pt as to an unj us tenr i chment cl ai m , for
w h ich C o n stru c tio n D rilli n g w a s a w a rd e d o v e r $ 3 5 0 ,0 0 0 ( jo in tlya n d se v e ra llya g a in st a ll defe ndan ts)
. T he N ew J er s eyC our ti s s ued a l engt hyopi ni on det ai l i ng t he open f actual qu est i on s t hat m and at ed the den i al of sum m aryj ud gm ent on m ostcl ai m s. B . T he T exas A ct i on M eanw hi l e, i n A ugus t 2000, t he SE C comm ence d an act i on i n t he U n it ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he N or t her n D i s t r i ct of T exas ( “t he T exas C our t ”) agai ns tE ugene Chusi d,
a m o n g o th e rs. B o ris C h u sid w a s inc lu d e d a s a “r e lief d e f e n d a n t” ( “t he Texas A ct i on”)
. T he

1 Te x a s Ac t i o n f

o c u s e d o n a n o t h e r f

r a u d u l e n t s c h e me i n v o l v i n g t h e Ch u s i d f a mi l y
– t h i s t i me a pyr ami d s cheme. T he T exas C our t appoi nt ed a R ece i verw ho t hen i ns t i tut ed pr ocee di ngs t o r ecove rfunds thatt he C hus i ds t r ans ferr ed t o L uxembourg i n vi ol at i on of a r es t r ai ni ng
or der
. A ppel l ee Crof

tfi l ed a c l ai m agai ns tt he as s et s h eld byt he R ece i veri nvol vi ng N ew J er s eyr eal es t at e ow ned by t he C hus i ds ( “t he N ew J er s ey pr oper t y ”)
. T he R ece i veracc ept ed t he cl ai m and l at erappr oved i t s s et t l ement . Subse quent l y , t he R ece i verfi l ed a mot i on
r eques t i ng t he Texas C our tt o appr ove t he s et t l ement . W hi l e the R ece i ver ’ s m ot i on
a c k n o w led g e d th a t th e C h u sid s w o u ld p ro b a b lyo p p o se th is m o tio n , the C h u sid s m a in tain t hatt he R ece i verdi d notconfe rw i t h t hei rat t or ney r egar di ng t he mot i on as i s r equi r ed byt heL oc a l Ru le7. 1( a) o f t heNo rt he rn Di stric t of

Te xas p ro vid e s: 2 [b]e f

o r e f il in ga mo ti o n , anatt o r

n e y f o r th e mo ving pa rt y mus t c on fer w ith an atto rn e y fo r e a c h p art

y aff ecte d by th e requested relief to de termine whe ther the motion is opposed. L oc a l Ru le7. 1( e ) o f t

heNo rt he rn Di stric t of

Te xas p ro vid e s: 3 [a] responseand brie f to an opposed motion must be filed within 20 day s from the date the motion is filed. Whil e the me morand

um in su pp or t of Chu sid ’s me mo re qu e sts 4 that the New J erse y Court sta y or deny the application for discharg e, the Ne w Je rs e y

Court ha d a lr e a dy

orde re d th at all re stra int s and atta c hments 5 L ocal R ul es fort he Texas C our t . T he C hus i ds al s o m ai ntai n that the Texas C our t ’ s l ocal 2

rul es w er e vi ol at ed w hen t he T exas C our t or der ed C r oft t o t ake j udgm entagai ns tt he C hus i ds i n t he amount of $2, 400, 000, t hr ee day s aft ert he mot i on w as fi l ed, i ns t ead of gi vi ng t he C hus i ds 20 day s t o r es pond. N ot abl y , t he C hus i ds di d nots eek l eave t o fi l e pape r s outof 3 tim e , file a m o tio n f

o r re c o n sid e ra tio n , o r f ile a n o tice o f

a p p e a l to th e F if

th C irc u it. A d d iti o n a lly , the T e x a s ju d g m e n t w a s n o t re g iste re d w ith th e N e w Je rse yC o u rt. T o eff ectuat e t he Texas j udgm ent , Con s tru c t i o n Dr i l l i n g r e q u e s t ed t hatt he N ew J er s ey C our ti s s ue an or derdi s char gi ng t h e att achm ent s and r es t r ai nt s ( “di s char ge or der ”) on t he N ew J ersey p rop er t y . T he N ew J er s eyC our tgr ant ed t he r eques t . T her eaf t er , t he C hus i ds fi l ed a m ot i on, pur s uant t o Fed. R
. C i v. P. 60( b) ( “60( b) ”) t o ( 1) s t ayt he Texas O r derand ( 2) to d en yo r st ay(un ti l th e c o n clus io n o f th e N ew Jerse yac ti o n ) C o n stru cti o n D ri ll ing ’s ap p li ca ti o n reg ard in g the N ew Jerse yp rop erty(he n ce fo rt h ref erred to as “C h u sid’s
m o tio n ” ). T h e N e w Je rse y C o u r t d e n ied th is m o tio n a n d h e ld th a t th e T e x a s ju d g m e n t in

4on theNe w Je rs e y

prope rt y bedis c ha

rg e d. Thus , th e motion

wo uld probably best be construed as a mot ion for a stay of the order discharg ing theatta c hments and

re stra int s. It is more ty

pical tha t a motion to st ay an enf orce ment of a 5 judgme nt be brought pursuant to Fe d. R. Civ. P . 62. 6 f a v o r o f C ro f t w a s v a lid a n d e n f

o rc e a b le
. I I . J UR I S DI CT I ON T he par t i es di s agr ee over t he exi s t ence of appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on. D eni al s of m ot i ons
m ade pur s uantt o 60( b) ar e hel d t o be appe al abl e fi nal or der s under28 U
. S. C
. § 1291. See G ree n v . W h it e, 31 9 F
. 3 d 5 6 0 , 5 6 3 n . 2 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ). W h il e w e re c o g n iz e th a t C h u sid’s
m o tio n is a n a typ ica l 6 0 (b ) m o tio n , w e c o n c lu d e th a t o rd e rs f ro m 6 0 (b ) m o tio n s c o n stitu te appea l abl e fi nal or der s w hen “[ t ] he deni al of t hi s m ot i on w oul d di s pos e, fi nal l y , of t he cha r ge and
. . . w r ap up al l m at t er s pendi ng on t he docke t . ” See Torr es v. C hat er, 125 F. 3d 166, 168 5 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( ci t i ng favor abl yK apco M anufa ctur i ng C o. v. C & O E nt er . , 773 F. 2d 151, 1 5 3 (7th C ir
. 1 9 8 5 )); P en n W
. A sso cs. v . C o h en , 3 7 1 F
. 3 d 1 1 8 , 1 2 3 -24 (3d
. C ir
. 2 0 0 4 ). In t he i ns t ant cas e, t he N ew J er s eyC our t ’ s deni al of t he mot i on t o s t ayt er m i nat ed al l l i t i gat i on
on t he docket for t he N ew J er s eyact i on t hus qual i fy i ng t he deni al of t hi s unor t hodox 60( b)
m o ti o n as a n ap p ea lable f inal o rde r.

I I I . DI S CU S S I ON T he pr i nci pal i s s ue r ai s ed on appe al i s w het hert he N ew J er s ey C our t er r ed i n deny i ngDuring o ral a rg u ment, th eJu dg e stated to Chusid’s attorney “you 6 have no standing.” The J udg e’s conclusion, howeve r, was not based on standinganalysis, nor is Chusi d ’s ar gument with reg ard to the se cond i s s u e o n ap p ea l
. Wh i l e C hu s i d cl ai m s t o b e ar gu i n g th ath e h as s t an d i n g, heis a c tually makin g pr

ud e nti a l argument a s to why it w a s a pp ro priate for him to f

ile the 60(b) motion in the New J erse y Court. He off

ers the fo llo wi ngre a so ns : 1) thestatut ory langua g e of 60 (b ); (2 ) e qu ita

ble c on sid e ratio ns , sp e c if

ic a lly , the fa

mil iari ty of

theNe w Je rs e y

Cou rt wi th the matter, a

nd 3) the fir st filed rule. Thereis no que stion that in certain circumstance s, a 60(b) motion is a pp ro priate ly

fi le d in a c ourt oth e r than

therend e ri ngc ourt . T hat is not the issue before us. The iss ue before us is whether the New J erse y Court’s decision to deny the 60(b) motion should be re verse d. The fa ct that Chusid could f

i l e a 60(b) motion beforethe New J erse y Court has nothi n g to do with whether or not the New Jersey

Court should have granted it . B e c a

us e wearea ff

ir min gtheNe w Je rs e y

Court ’s de nial, thereis no need to expound upon any standing or otherw ise proce dural issues. We notethat the standard of re view for motions brought under 7 60(b)( 4) is plenar

y , not abuse of disc retion.

7 C hus i d’ s m ot i on fora s t ayof t he Texas or derand/ ora s t ayof t he di s char ge appl i cat i on. 6 C h u sid a rg u e s g e n e ra llyth a t b yd e n y in g th e m o tio n , the N e w Je rse yC o u rt a b u se d its dis cret i on i n thr ee w ay s. C hu si d f irst a rg ues t hat the st ay s w ere r equ i red t o acco m pli sh j us t i ce pur s uant t o 60( b) ( 6) beca us e of t he ext r eme har ds hi p i m pos ed on hi m byt he Texas O rd e r. C h u si d n e x t a r g u e s th a t th e N e w Je rse yC o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n b yre f u sin g to hea r e v i dence s uppor t i ng t he mot i on. Fi nal l y , C hus i d ar gues t hatt he s t ay s w er e r equi r ed pur s uantt o 60( b) ( 4) beca us e t he Texas O r dervi ol at ed due pr oces s . W e addr es s eac h of 7 C hus i d’ s ar gum ent s i n tur n. A . T he A buse of

D i s cre t i on Standard W e r evi ew t he r equ est fora s t aybas ed on 60( b) 6) underan abus e of di s cr et i onWh il e it is s o mewh at un c le ar wh e th e r b o th c o mp o nents of 8 Chusid’s moti on is based on 60(b) (6), wearepres um i ngfrom the arguments made that Chusid justifies only the s tay of the Te x as Order on the basis of 60(b) (6). 8 s t andar d. G ener al l y , an abuse of di s cr et i on m ay be found i n a deni al of a 60( b) m ot i on w hen “t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on r es t s upon a cl ear l yer r oneous fi ndi ng of fa ct , an err ant
c o n c lu s io n o f

la w o r a n im p ro p e r a p p lic a tio n o f la w to f a c t.” I nt ’ l U ni on, U A W v. M ack T ruc k s, Inc
. , 8 2 0 F
. 2 d 9 1 , 9 5 (3d C ir
. 1 9 8 7 ).

B . T he M ot i on M ade P urs uant t o 60( b) ( 6) 8 R ul e 60( b) ( 6) i s t he cat ch- al l pr ovi s i on of 60( b)
. I ts t at es t hatr el i ef c an be pr ovi ded fr om an or der “for any ot her r eas on j us t i fy i ng r el i ef fr om t he oper at i on of t he j udgm ent ” not befor e ment i oned. Fed. R
. C i v. P. 60( b) ( 6)
. “Legal er r ordoes not b y it self w ar r antt he ap p li ca ti o n of R ul e 60( b)
. . . . . Si nce l egal er r orcan us ual l ybe corr ect ed on appe al , t hat f a c to r w ith o u t m o re d o e s n o t ju s tif yth e g r a n t i n g o f

re lie f u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b )( 6 ).” M ar t i nez- M cB ean v. G ov’ tof V i r gi n I s l ands , 562 F. 2d 908, 912 ( 3d C i r . 1977)
. W e have “cons i s t ent l yhel d t hatt he R ul e 60( b) ( 6) gr ound forr el i ef f r om j udgm entp r ovi des for
e x tr a o rd in a ry re lie f

a n d m a yo n ly b e in v o k e d u p o n a s h o w in g o f e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s .” I n r e Fi ne PaperA nt i t rus tL i t i g. , 840 F. 2d 188, 194 (3d C ir
. 1988) ( i nt er nal quot at i ons
o m it ted). C hus i d m ai nt ai ns t hatt he i ns t ants i tu ati o n cons t i tut es exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s beca us e t he Texas C our tappr oved t he s et t lem entbet w een the R ece i verand C ons t ruct i on D r i l l i ng w i t houtgi ving h im an o ppor tuni t yt o be hea r d. A nd i n s o doi ng, i tus urped t heTh is is esse nti a lly thesameargument C hu sid make s w ith 9 reg ards to the dueproce ss claim discussed later in the opinion. 9 pow er of t he N ew J er s ey C our t . W e di s agr ee. T he N ew J er s eyC our tappar ent l yr ecogni zed 9 that the T e x a s O rd e r co n fli cted w ith the N ew Jerse yC o u rt ’s pa rt ial d en ial o f su m m ary j udgm ent . H ow ever , t he N ew J er s eyC our t vi ew ed t he T exas O r dernotas an us urpt i on of p o w er, bu t r athe r as a sett lem en t betw ee n the R ec eive r an d C o n stru cti o n D ri ll ing
. M o reo v er, the R ec eive r w as g iven v ast p o w ers in the T ex as a cti o n to m arsh al asse ts an d C h u sid o ff ers no evi dence t hatt he R ece i verexcee d ed t he s cope of hi s pow erbyent er i ng i nt o s uch a
s e ttle m e n t o r th a t th e T e x a s C o u rt w a s re q u ir e d to c o n s u lt w ith h im u n d e r i ts lo c a l r u le s . B eca us e C hus i d has notes t abl i s hed a c l ear l yer r oneous fi ndi ng of fa ct , an err ant concl us i on of l aw or an i m pr oper appl i cat i on of l aw t o fac t , t her e i s no r eas on t o fi nd t hatt he N ew Jerse yC o u rtab u sed it s d iscreti o n b y d en y ing the m o ti o n fo r st ayp u rsua n t t o 6 0 (b)(6 ). C . R ef usal t o H ear Evi dence A t th e o u tse t, w e n o te th a t re f u sin g to h e a r e v id e n c e , w ith o u t m o re , d o e s n o t co n stitu te a “c l ear l yer r oneous fi ndi ng of fac t , an er r ant concl us i on of l aw oran i m pr operappl i cat i on of l aw t o fac t ” as i s r equi r ed for a fi ndi ng of abus e of di s cr et i on i n a 60( b) cas e. T hus , even
a ss u m in g th a t C h u sid ’s c h a ra c ter iza tio n o f th e N e w Je rse yC o u rt’s a c tio n is c o rre c t, it still
w oul d notr i s e t o t he l evel of an a bus e of di s cr et i on. C h u s id ’ s c h a ra c ter iza tio n , h o w e v e r, se e m s in a c c u ra te. A c c o rd in g to th e tra n sc rip t, t he N ew J er s eyD i s t r ict Ju dge di d di s pl ayfami l i ar i t yw i t h t he i s s ue athand. T he J udge quot ed fr om a w el l
- r es pect ed t r eat i s e on t he top ic, cit ed a Seve nt h C i r cui tcas e, andA cour t that is not the one which rende red the underly ing issue, 10 but one in which anothe r cour t’s decision is reg istered. Th e Ne w Je rs e y

Judg e qu ote d th e fo llo wi ngfrom W right & 11 Miller: Relief under Rule 60(b) ordinarily is obtained by motion in the cour t that rende red thejudgme nt. I f a judgm ent obtained in one district ha s been re g ist e re d in

ano ther distri c t, a s p ro vid e d b y Se c tio n 1 96 3 o f Ti tle28 , it is p os sib letha

t the c ourt in the dis tric t of re g ist ratio n h a s ju

ri sdic tio n to he ar a Rul e 60 (b ) m oti on . Ind e e d, several c ourt s h averu le d th at it is proper for th e re g istration court to enter tain a Rule 60(b) motion when the basis for themotion is that th e judgme nt is void for a lac k of jurisdiction. 11 Charles Ala

n Wright &Arthur R. Miller, F ederal Prac tice and Procedure § 2865 (1973)
. The Ne w J erse y

Court further

noted that the Texas O rder had not bee n re g ist e re d in

theNe w Je rs e y

dis tric t. Whil e Chusid does not specif y which compone nt of his motion 12 is ba se d on Rul e 60 (b )( 4) , his argument su g g e st that it i s o nly a pp lic a ble to the reque st to stay

the Texas Orde r.

10 a c c u ra tely p o in ted o u t th a t th e in sta n t ca se d id n o t q u a lifyu n d e r th e e x c e p tio n w h ich p e rm its
a r egi s t er i ng cour t , as oppos ed t o a r ender i ng cour t , t o hear t he 60( b) m ot i on. T he J udge 10 11 also ask ed C h u sid’s att o rne y fo r a n y ca ses su p p o rt ing h is p o sit ion
. N o n e w ere p rov ided
. In t hes e ci r cumst ance s , w e fi nd no abus e of di s cr et i on. D . M ot i on M ade P urs uant t o 60( b) ( 4) 12 R e lie f u n d e r 6 0 (b )( 4 ) i s a p p ro p ri a te ly s o u g h t w h e n th e a ju d g m e n t is v o id . A j udgm entcan be voi ded on t w o gr ounds : ( 1) i f t he r end ering co u rt l acke d s ubj ectm at t er ju r isd ictio n o r (2 ) i f it a c ted in a m a n n e r i n c o n sis ten t w ith d u e p ro c e ss o f law
. W rig h t & M ille r, F e d e ra l P ra c tic e a n d P ro c e d u re § 2 8 6 2
.11

W hi l e 60( b) ( 4) m ot i ons ar e or di nar i l yr ai s ed i n t he cour t t hat r ender ed t he dec i s i on, t heycan be ra ised el s ew her e. For exampl e, a number of C our t s of A ppeal s have a ppr oved
a r egi s t er i ng cour t ’ s r el i ance on R ul e 60( b) ( 4) t o voi d a j udgm entw hen t he j udgm ent i nvol ved a de faul tj udgm entand t he r ender i ng cour tw as w i t houtj ur i s di ct i on overt he d ef en d an t. S ee H arp er M ac leod S o li cit o rs v . K ea ty & K ea ty , 2 6 0 F
. 3 d 3 8 9 , 3 9 4 -95 (5th C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ). A s th e re is n o d isp u te th a t th e T e x a s C o u rt h a s ju risd ictio n o v e r th e C h u sid s, th e o n ly bas i s under60( b) ( 4) for voi di ng t he T exas O r deri s i f i ti s s how n t o vi ol at e due pr oces s . See W ri g h t & M ille r, F e d e ra l P ra c tic e a n d P ro c e d u re § 2 8 6 2
. W hil e m ostm oti on s m ade p ursuant t o R ule 60 (b) m ay be reversed on l yfor an ab use
o f d iscreti o n , d eterm ination s tha t a j u d g em en t is vo id u n d er 6 0 (b)(4 ) are su b ject t o p lena ry
re v ie w . S ee B o u g h n er v . S ec retary o f H ea lth , E d u c. an d W elfa re, 57 2 F
. 2 d 9 7 6 , 9 7 7 (3d C ir
. 1978)
. A s not ed by t he S econd C i r cui t , “underR ul e 60( b) ( 4) a def er ent i al s t andar d of r evi ew i s notappr opr i at e bec aus e i f t he under l y i ng j udgm enti s voi d, i ti s a pers e abus e of di s cr et i on f o r a D is tr ic t C o u rt to d e n ya m o v a n t’ s m o tio n to v a c a te th e ju d g m e n t u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b )( 4 ).” C ent . V er m ontPub. Ser v. C orp. v. H erber t , 3 4 1 F. 3d 186, 189 ( 2d C i r . 2003) ( i nt er nal
c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). L o c a l R u le 7 .1 (e ) o f

th e N o rth e rn D istric t o f T e x a s sta tes th a t a re sp o n se a n d b rie f to
a n o p p o s e d m o t i o n m u s t b e f i l e d w i t h i n 2 0 d a y s f

r o m t h e d a t e w h i c h t h e m o t i o n i s f i l e d
. We pr es um e, w i t houtdeci di ng, t hatt he Texas C our tvi ol at ed Local R ul e 7. 1 w hen i tappr oved t he set t l ement t hr ee da y s aft era mot i on s eeki ng appr oval w as fi l ed. W e have notcons i der ed12

w hethera renderi ng cou rt ’s f a ilu re t o fo l l ow i t s ow n local rul es const i tutes a du e process d e p ri v a tio n u p o n w h ic h re lie f f ro m ju d g m e n t c o u ld b e g ra n te d
. T w o C our t s of A ppeal s, w h en confr ont ed w i t h a s i m i l ari s s ue, r eac hed di ffe r ent
r es ul t s . I n U ni t ed St at es v. 1982 Sanger 24’ Spect r a B d. , a for fei tur e pr ocee di ng, t he di s t r i ct
cour t , cont r ar yt o i t s l ocal rul es , s t ruck pet it ion er s ’ cl ai m s and t hei rans w ert o t he ver i fi ed compl ai ntw i t houtal l ow i ng pet i t i oner s t o r epl y t o t he G over nm ent ’ s m ot i on. 738 F. 2d 1043 ( 1984)
. I n cons i der i ng w het her t he di s t r i ct cour t comm i t t ed an act upon w hi ch a R ul e 60( b)
m ot i on can be bas ed, t he N i nt h C i r cui t hel d t hat “al t hough a fai l ur e t o fol l ow a l ocal rul e may
n o t rise to th e lev e l o f

a d u e p ro c e ss v io latio n , n o n e th e les s w h e n th e e f f e c t is c o n c lu siv e ly to d isp o se o f

a c laim , fa ilu re to p ro v id e n o tice is a se rio u s p ro c e d u ra l irre g u lar ityw h ich in t hi s cas e j us t i fi es r el i ef f r om j udgm entunder R ul e 60(b)
. ” Sanger , 738 F. 2d at1046. T he N in th C irc u it c o n c lu d e d th a t th e c laim a n ts w e re e n tit led to re lief f ro m ju d g m e n t p u rsu a n t to 6 0 (b )( 4 ). T h e S e v e n th C irc u it, h o w e v e r, issu e d a so m e w h a t co n tra ryru lin g in B lan e yv . W e st, 209 F. 3d 1027 ( 7 C i r . 2000)
. I n B l aney , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed t he pl ai nt i ff’ s cas e s ua th
s pont e bec aus e of a s er vi ce de fec t . W hi l e t he pl ai nt i ff a t t empt ed t o cor r ect t he pr obl em by
r e f i l i n g a n d r e s e r v i n g t h e s u i t , t h e s e c o n d s u i twas a l s o d i s mi s s e d b e c a u s e t h e s t a tu t e of l i m i t at i on had expi r ed. T he pl ai nt i ff f i l ed a Rul e 60( b) ( 4) m ot i on fort he fi r s t s ui t , cl ai m i ng t he j udgm entw as voi d beca us e he ha d notr ece ived n ot i ce be for e t he cour tent er ed t he d ism issal. Id

. T he Seventh C ir cu it concl uded t hatt he pl ai nt i ff’ s fai l ur e t o r ece i ve not i ce13

befor e t he j udgm entent r ydi d notr i s e t o t he l evel of a vi ol at i on of due pr oces s beca us e t he pl ai nt i ff r ece i ved not i ce f r om t he j udgm enti t s el f and ha d ample o p p o rt u n ityt o m ove for
rec o n side rati o n o f th e jud g m en t. Id

. a t 1 0 3 2
. W e f in d th e re a so n in g o f th e S e v e n th C irc u it i n B l aneym or e ana l ogous t o t hi s cas e. H er e, t he Texas C our tappr oved t he s et t l ement b etw ee n A p pel l ee Crof tand t he R ece i vert hr ee da y s aft er t he R ece i ver m oved for appr oval
. T he s et t l ement t er m s i ncl uded C r oft s t aki ng j udgm enton al l count s of t he compl ai nt i n t he N ew J er s ey A ct i on i n t he amount
o f $ 2 4 0 ,0 0 0
. T her e w as ampl e t i m e betw een the d at e t hatt he Texas O r derw as i s s ued and w hen th e N e w Je rse yC o u rt d isc h a rg e d th e a ttac h m e n t an d re stra in ts o n th e N e w Je rse yp ro p e rty forC hus i d t o s eek a s t ay or ot her w i s e m ake hi s cas e bef or e t he Texas C our t . I n t he Texas C our t , C hus i d coul d have f i l ed a mot i on forr econs i der at i on, a R ul e 62 m ot i on, a R ul e 60( b)
m ot i on, oran a p p ea l to corr ectanyhar m s uffe r ed byC hus i d’ s i nabi l i t yt o r es pond t o t he pr opos ed s et t l ement . T he C hus i ds knew t hatt he R ece i verw as m ar s hal i ng t hei ras s et s , w hi ch in c lu d e d th e N e w Je rse yp ro p e rty . T h e C h u sid s a re n o t c h a llen g in g th e R e c e iv e r’s a u th o rity to tak e c o n tr o l o f th e N ew Jerse yp rop erty , b u t, instead are ch all en g ing the R ec eive r’s d e c isio n to u se th e N e w Je rse yp ro p e rty to se ttl e th e c laim s th a t C ro f t h a s a g a in st th e a ss e ts h eld b ythe R ec eive r. A n y o bje c tio n s the C h u sids m ayh av e h ad to the sett lem en t are ind ep en dentof anycl ai m t heyw oul d have a gai ns tt he R ece i ver . H er e, t he Texas C o u rt ’s app roval of the set t l em ent w i t hin t hree day s si m plydo es not r i se to t he level of a d ue p rocess14

vi ol at i on. T her efor e, w e conc l ude t hatt he Texas C our t ’ s act i ons do not pr ovi de t he bas i s for
re lie f p u rs u a n t to 6 0 (b )( 4 ). In su m , w e a f

f irm b e c a u se th e N e w J e r s e y C o u rt w a s w ith in its so u n d d isc re tio n to denyC hus i d’ s R ul e 60( b) ( 6) m oti o n an d beca us e t he ac t i on of t he Texas C our tdoes not
re n d e r t h e T e x a s O rd e r v o id a b le p u rs u a n t to 6 0 (b )( 4 ).

W e have cons i der ed al l of t he ar gum ent s advanc ed by t he par t i es and conc l ude t hat
no fur t her di s cus s i on i s nece s s ar y . A ccor di ngl y , t he j udgm ent of t he D i s t r i ct C our t w i l l be aff i r m ed.