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 8-21-2007 

# V irgin Record s v

. S p ar ano P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4603

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " V irgin Re c or d s v

. S p ar ano " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 561. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/561NOT 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- 4603

________________ VI RGI N RECORDS AM ERI CA, I NC.

v. K I M SPA R A N O ; D O E S N o. 1- 50, I ncl us i ve; X Y Z C O M PA N Y N o. 1- 50, I ncl us i ve; BE NJ AM I N S P AR ANO, K i m Spar ano; B enj ami n Spar ano,

A p p e llan ts

______________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m 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. 05- cv- 02511) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo sep h A . G ree n aw ay , Jr.

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

A U G U ST 17, 2007 Be f o r e : REN DELL, HA RD I M AN AN D C OW EN, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed A ugus t21, 2007 )

___________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM O n O ct ober6, 2006, t he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed K i m and B enj ami n Spar ano’ s m ot i onM s. S p a ra n o is a n o n -p ra c ticin g a tto rn e ylice n se d in N e w Je rse y . B e n jam in 1 S p a ra n o , M s . S p a ra n o ’s s o n , w a s a d d e d a s a d e f e n d a n t in M a y2 0 0 6 . A lth o u g h th e d istric t ju d g e sta ted th a t h e c o n sid e re d th e m o tio n a R u le 2 6 0 ( b ) mo t i o n , h e a p p a r e n t l ye v a l u a t e d i tu n d e rth e Ru l e 5 9 ( e ) s t a n d a r d . Ne v e r t h e l e s s , we 2 to re c o n sid e r th e Ju ly1 9 , 2 0 0 6 d e n ial o f th e ir m o tio n to d e c lar e n u ll an d v o id th e ir s tip u la tio n w ith V ir g in R e c o rd s A m e ri c a , In c . (“ V ir g in ” ). W e w ill a f f ir m . I. O n M ay12, 2005, V i r gi n fi l ed a c om pl ai nti n t he U . S. D i s t r i ctC our tforthe D istri ct of

N ew Jerse yasse rt ing that p ro se d ef en d an t K im S p ara n o inf ri n g ed V ir g in’s 1 c o p yr i g h t s b yr e l e a s i n g a n d d i s t r i b u t i n g c e r t a i n s o u n d r e c o r d i n g s o v e rth e i n t e r n e t . On M ay18, 2006, t he di s t r i ctcour ti s s ued a f i nal j udgm entand or deraft erthe part i es s ett l ed t he ca s e thr ough a s t i pul at i on. H ow ever , on J une 12, 2006, aft erV i r gi n acc us ed the Spar anos of vi ol at i ng t he s t i pul at i on, the Spar anos fi l ed a mot i on t o decl ar e the s t i pul at i on and M ay18t h or dernul l and voi d. T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed the mot i on on J ul y19t h, and on A ugus t8t h, t he Spar anos fi l ed a “ M ot i on t o R econs i der . ” T h e S p ara n o s d id n o t spe cifythe leg al fo u n d ati o n o f th e m o ti o n to rec o n side r; how ever , t he di s t r i ctcour tdet erm i ned thatthei r“as s ert i ons [w e] r e bes tfr amed and eval uat ed undert he rubr i c of Fed. R . C i v. P. 60( b) . . . . ” A nd on O ct ober6, 2006, the d istric t co u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n b e c a u se it m e re lyre itera ted th e a rg u m e n ts a d v a n c e d in t he Spar anos ’ m ot i on t o decl ar e the s t i pul at i on nul l and voi d and fa i l ed t o pr es entnew e v id e n c e o r a c h a n g e in c o n tro lli n g law . T h e S p a ra n o s a p p e a led f ro m th e O c to b e r 6 th 2aff

i r m t he deni al of the mot i on beca us e i tcannots ur vi ve r evi ew underthe R ul e 60( b) s ta n d a rd . 3 or deron O ct ober26, 2006. II. S u b j e c tt o c e r t a i n e x c e p t i o n s , a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l m u s tb e f

i l e d w i t h i n th i r t y d a ys fr om t he entr ydat e of the di s put ed or der . Fed. R . A pp. P. 4( a) ( 1) ( A ) . W e ca nnotr evi ew t he J ul y19t h or derbeca us e the Spar anos fi l ed thei rnot i ce of appea l on O ct ober 26t h— w el l out s i de the thi r t y - daydeadl i ne. M or eover , the Spar anos ’ A ugus t8, 2006 m o ti o n to rec o n side r did n o t t o ll the tim e f o r fil ing the a p p ea l bec au se itw as f il ed m o re th a n te n d a y s a f

te r t h e J u ly 1 9 th o rd e r. F e d . R . A p p . P . 4 (a )( 4 )( A ). T he not i ce of

appea l i s t i m el y , how ever , as t o t he O ct ober6, 2006 or derdeny i ng th e m o tio n to re c o n s id e r b e c a u s e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o n s id e re d it a R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n . W h e n a m o tio n is “ f

iled o u tsid e o f

th e ten d a y s p ro v id e d f o r u n d e r R u le 5 9 (e ) b u t w ith in t he y earperm i t t ed underR ul e 60( b) , and the mot i on m aybe r ead t o i ncl ude gr ounds cogni zabl e undert he l at t errul e, w e w i l l cons i deri tt o have be en fi l ed as a R ul e 60( b) m ot i on. ” A hm ed v. D r agovi ch, 297 F. 3d 201, 209 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . T he thrus tof the Spar anos ’ m ot i on t o r econs i derw as thatthe s t i pul at i on thatended the l i t i gat i on w as “not fai r l yarr i ved at ” due t o V i r gi n’ s m i s r epr es ent at i ons and omi s s i ons . T heyal s o al l eged t hatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed bydet erm i ni ng thattheyhad notpr es ent ed “c l earand co n v incin g p roo f” that the s ti p u lat ion sh o u ld b e re scin d ed . B ec au se th e m o ti o n , u n d er a4

l i ber al r eadi ng, i ncl uded gr ounds cogni zabl e underR ul e 60( b) ( 3) , i . e. , fr aud or m i s r epr es ent at i on, t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s det erm i nat i on thati tbe cons i der ed a Rul e 60( b) m o tio n w a s a p p ro p ri a te . S e e A h m e d , 2 9 7 F .3 d a t 2 0 8 -0 9 . III . W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291, and the deni al of a Rul e 60( b) m ot i on i s r evi ew ed forabus e of di s cr et i on. R eform Par t yof A l l eghenyC ount yv. A l l eghenyC ount yD ep’ tof El ect i ons , 174 F. 3d 305, 311 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( “A n abus e of di s cr et i on m aybe found w hen the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on r es t s upon a cl ear l yerr oneous fi ndi ng of fa ct , an err antconcl us i on of l aw oran i m pr operappl i cat i on of l aw t o fac t . ”) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed) . A ddi t i onal l y , an appe al fr om the deni al of a Rul e 60( b) m ot i on pl ace s ati s s ue onl yt he deni al of the mot i on forr evi ew , notthe mer i t s of the u n d e rl y in g d e c is io n . S m ith v . E v a n s , 8 5 3 F .2 d 1 5 5 , 1 5 8 n .1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). T he Spar anos ’ m ot i on does notexpr es s l yci t e t o anyof R ul e 60( b) ’ s enumer at ed gr ounds forr el i ef, and i n fac tdoes notci t e R ul e 60 atal l ; how ever , the Spar anos cont end t hatV i r gi n m ade mat er i al m i s r epr es ent at i ons and omi s s i ons t o i nduce them t o s i gn the stip u latio n th a t en d e d th e lit ig a tio n . T h u s, th e m o tio n c o u ld b e re a d a s f a lli n g u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b)(3 ) as w ell as th e “ ca tcha ll ” o f 6 0 (b)(6 ). T h ere are , h o w ev er, no “e x tr ao rdin ary circu m stan ce s” p rese n t th at w arran t r ec o n side rati o n u n d er R u le 60 (b)(6 ). S ee R ef o rm P arty , 17 4 F . 3d at31 1. A dd i t i on al l y , as the d i stri ctcou rtrecogn i zed, the S parano s’ m ot i on es s ent i al l yr ear gues t he mer i t s of thei ror i gi nal m ot i on t o decl ar e the s t i pul at i onIt a p p e a rs th a t th e S p a ra n o s w e re a ttem p tin g to u se th e m o tio n to 3 r econs i deras a s ubs t i tut e forappea l , w hi ch i s notal l ow ed. M art i nez- M cB ean v. G ov’ tof V i r gi n I s l ands , 562 F. 2d 908, 911 ( 3d C i r . 1977) ( “[I ] ti s i m pr opert o gr antr el i ef unde r R ul e 60( b) ( 6) i f the aggr i eved pa r t ycoul d have r eas onabl ys oughtthe s ame r el i ef by m e a n s o f a p p e a l.” ). 5 n u ll an d v o id an d d isag ree s w ith the d istri ct co u rt ’s co n clus ion s tha t th eyd id n o t sup p o rt t hei ral l egat i ons w i t h t he r equi r ed cl earand convi nci ng evi dence . Such cont ent i ons do n o t ju stif yre lief u n d e r R u le 6 0 . A c c o rd in g ly , the d istric t co u rt d id n o t ab u se its 3 d is c re tio n in d e n y in g th e S p a ra n o s ’ m o tio n to re c o n s id e r. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s O ct ober6, 2006 o rde r.