FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB 16, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NO T PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 1 0- 10 70 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 3- cv -0 35 94 -GET BKCY No . A93 -7 22 01 -J EM
InRe: PHYSICI ANS RELIANCE ASSOCIATION, INC.,

PHYSICI ANS RELIANCE MARKETING COMPANY, PHYSICI ANS RELIANCE ASSOCIATION INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., MEDICAL PROS PECTIVE, INC., Deb to rs .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ PHYSICI ANS RELIANCE ASSOCIATION, INC., BY AND THROUGHITS Ch ap te r 7 Tru st ee, J am es R. Mar sh al l, JERRY L. SEW ELL, A ss ig ne e o f Ph y si ci an s Rel ia nc e Ass oc ia ti on , Inc ., Pl ai nt iff s- App el le es , ve rs us GEORGE M. MEREDITH, II, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.App eal fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a (Feb ru ary 16 , 20 11 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, W ILSON an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: App el la ntGeor ge Mere di th , pro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s
or de r de nyin g h is po st -jud gm en t m ot io n t o d is m is s i n a n u nd erl y in g b an krup tc y pr oc eed in g. Onap pe al , Mere di th ge ne ral ly argu es th athe sh ou ldno t h av e b een in cl ud edin th e b an krup tc y pro ceed in g i n t he fir stin st an ce b ecau se he ha d

“ imm un ity ,” gi ve n t ha t h e was ne ve r in su redby Phy si ci an s R el ia nc e Ass oc ia ti on , In c., (“ PRA”) , andth atJerry Sewel l fa il edto pro vi de pro of of t he same. He do es no t, h owe ve r, di rect ly chal le ng e th e d efau ltjud gm en t en te redag ai ns t h im ba se d
on hi s fa il ur e to rece iv e se rv ic e o f th e su m m on s o r co m

pl ai ntth atul ti m at el y

ledto th e d efau ltjud gm en t. Me red it h a ls o a rg ue s, fo r th e fi rs t t im e, th atSewel l

“ se le ct iv el y

pro se cu te d” th e cas e to ch il l h is Fir stAm en dm en t ri gh ts wit h re sp ect to ed it or ia ls th athe wrot e th atwere cr it ic al of s ev eral po li ti cal fig ur es an d go ve rn m en t af

fai rs . Gener al ly, we rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a Fed .R.Ci v.P 60 (b )

2m ot io n fo r an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Burke v. S mith , 25 2 F .3d12 60 , 12 63 (11 th Cir
. 20 01 ). Howev er, we rev ie w de no vo a cl ai m bro ug htun de r Ru le 60 (b )(4 ) ch al le ng in g t he jud gm en t as vo idforlac k o f pe rs on al juri sd ic ti on , as t hi s t y pe of cl ai m pre se nt s a q ue st io n o f la w. Old fi eld v . Pueb lo De Bah ia Lo ra , S.A. , 55 8 F.3 d 1 21 0, 1 21 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) (no ti ng th atwhi le th e Co urt g en eral ly revi ews a di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n fo r an ab us e o f di sc ret io n s ta nd ard ,

“ de no vo rev ie w of R

ul e 6 0( b) (4 ) ch al le ng es is warran te d b ecau se a di st ric t co urt’s fai lu re t o v acat e a v oi d ju dg m en t i s pe r s e anab us e o f di sc ret io n” ); se e a ls o Prew it t En te rs ., Inc . v. Org . of Petr ol eu m Expo rt in g C

ou ntri es , 35 3 F .3d91 6, 9 20 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) (rev ie win g de no vo di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a Fed .R.Ci v.P . 12 (b )
m ot io n t o d is m is s fo r la ck of i ns uf fic ie ntservi ce). We revi ew fo r cl ear e rro r an y factua l fi nd in gs reg ard in g s uf fic ie nc y of s erv ic e. Prew it t , 35 3 F .3dat 9 20
.

“ [ P ] ro se pl ead in gs are h el d t o ales s s tri ctst an da rdth anpl ead in gs fil edby la wy ers an d thu s ar e co ns tru edli be ral ly.” Alb a v . Mon tf or d , 51 7 F .3d12 49 , 12 52 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . Thi s l ib eral co ns tru ct io n, h owe ve r, “ do es no t g iv e a co urt l ic en se to serve as de fa ct o co un se l fo r a p art y , or t o re writ e anot he rwis e d efi ci en t pl ead in g i n o rd er t o s us ta in anact io n.” GJR Invs., In c. v. Cn ty . of Esca mbi a, Fla. , 13 2 F .3d13 59 , 13 69 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . Desp it e th e li be ral pl ead in g s ta nd ardfor pr o s e li ti ga nt s, t he ir f ai lu re t o b rie f is su es on ap pe al st il l
3am ou nt s t o a n aband on m en t o f th os e is su es . Ti mso n v . Sa mps on , 51 8 F .3d87 0,

87 4 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 8) . Like wis e, we wil l n otco ns id er ar gu m en ts no t p res en te d t o th e d is tri ctco urt an d ra is edforth e fi rs t t im e o n app eal
. Se e Alb ra v. Adva n, In c. , 49 0 F .3d82 6, 8 28 n.1 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Ru le 60 (b ) al lo ws re li ef t o apa rty from a fi na l ju dg m en t due to : (1 ) m is ta ke , in ad ve rte nc e, su rp ris e o r ex cu sabl e n eg le ct ; (2 ) ne wly di sc ov eredev id en ce t ha t, wi th reas on ab le di li ge nc e, co ul d n otha ve be endi sc ov eredin ti m e . . . ; (3 ) frau d . . . m is rep res en ta ti on , or m is co nduc t b y

anop po si ng pa rty; (4 ) th e jud gm en t i s v oi d; (5) th e jud gm en t h as be ensat is fie d, re le as edor d is ch arg ed
. . . rev ers edor va cat ed ; o r (6 ) an y

othe r rea so n tha t ju st ifi es rel ie f. Fed .R.Ci v.P . 60 (b ). Fu rth er, the Ru le pro vi de s t ha t “ [a] m ot io n u nd er Ru le 60 (b ) m us t b e m ad e wit hi n areas on ab le ti m e—a ndforreas on s (1 ), (2 ), an d (3 ) no t m or e th anon e y ear aft er the en try of the jud gm en t o r or de r or da te of t he pro ceed in g.” Fed .R.Ci v.P
. 60 (c)( 1) . It i s wel l es tabl is he d, h owe ve r, th atrel ie f un de r Ru le 60 (b )(6 ) “ is an ex tra or di na ry

rem edy whi ch m ay

be in vo ke d o nl y

up on a sh owi ng of e xc ep ti on al ci rcu m st an ces .” Gri

ff in v. Sw im-T

ech Co rp . , 72 2 F .2d67 7, 6 80 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . Mor eo ve r, anap pe al of arul in g o n aRu le 60 (b ) m ot io n i s
na rro w in sco pe , add res si ng on ly the pro pr ie ty of th e d en ia l o r gr an t o f rel ie f. Ameri ca n Ba nk

er s In s. Co . v. Nor th wes te rn Na t’l Ins . Co. , 19 8 F .3d13 32 , 13 38

4(1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) . As a res ul t, Ru le 60 (b ) m ay no t b e u se d t o c ha ll en ge m is ta ke s o f la w whi ch co ul d h av e b een rai se d o n d ire ctap pe al
. Id
.

“ Gen eral ly, whe re s erv ic e o f pr oc es s i s i ns uf fic ie nt , th e [d is tri ct ] co urt h as no po wer t o re nd er jud gm en t an d t he jud gm en t i s v oi d.” Se e In re Wor ld wi de W eb Syst ems , Inc
. , 32 8 F .3d12 91 , 12 99 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). If n otsquarel y rai se d b el ow, a p art y waiv es an y

ch al le ng e to a de fau ltjud gm en t o n i ns uf fic ie ntservi ce o f pr oc es s g ro un ds , abs en t a c om pe ll in g s ho win g t ha t ex cep ti on sh ou ldbe m ad e. Id. at13 00 (ho ld in g t ha t i nd iv idua l wai ve d c ha ll en ge ba se d o n R ul e 6 0( b) (4 ), whe re he arg ue d b efo re the ba nkrupt cy co urt o nl y

th atjud gm en t s ho ul d b e se t as id e un de r Ru le 60 (b )(1 ) an d (b )(6 )). The se ex cep ti on s i nc lu de : (1 ) a p ur e que st io n o f la w if t he refu sa l t o c on si de r itwou ldres ul t i n am is carr ia ge of ju st ic e; (2) an ob jecti onno t ra is edin th e co urt b el ow wh enth e ap pe ll an t h adno op po rtu ni ty to rai se th e o bjec ti on ; (3 ) an ob jecti on no t ra is edbe lo w when th ere i s atst ak e a subs ta nt ia l i nt eres t o f jus ti ce; (4) anis su e n otrai se d i n t he lo wer co urt wh enth e pr op er re so lu ti onis be y on d a ny do ub t; an d (5 ) an is su e fo r th e fi rs t t im e if th e is su e p res en ts si gn ifi can t que st io ns of g en eral im pa ctor g reatpubl ic co nc ern . Id
. at13 01 (no ti ng th at“ in te res ts of s ub st an ti al jus ti ce ar e g en eral ly equ at edwit h t he vi nd ic at io n o f fu nd am en ta l co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s, ra th er t ha n am on et ary jud gm en t” ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. 5Here, Me red it h fa il s t o s ho w th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin de nyin g h is

m ot io n t o d is m is s. Pre li m in ari ly, we wil l n otco ns id er h is “ se le ct iv e p ro se cu ti on ” cl ai m be cau se itwas n otrai se d b efo re the di st ric t co urt. As t o t he m eri ts of h is
m ot io n, t he reco rdsh ows th atMere di th rece iv edservi ce o f th e d is tri ctco urt’s
or de r to sh ow caus e th atul ti m at el y ledto a co nt em

ptord er, an d the di st ric t co urt di d n oterr i n d en y in g h is m ot io n o n t hi s b as is . To th e ex te ntMere di th ch al le ng es th e u nd erl y in g d efau ltjud gm en t u nd er Ru le 60 (b )(4 ), hi s m ot io n d idno t sp eci fic al ly rais e a cl ai m

th athe di d n otrece iv e se rv ic e o f PRA’s co m pl ai ntor su m m on s i n the un de rlyin g p ro ceed in g t ha t l edto de fau ltjud gm en t, an d a s a res ul t, h e wai ve d t he cla im
. 1 Bec au se we se e n o m eri t t o a ny of th e arg um en ts Mere di th m ak es in th is ap pe al , we affi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er d en y in g M ered it h’s p os t-ju dg m en t
m ot io n t o d is m is s. AFFIRMED.

In any event, the rec ord shows that Mere dith rec eived service of the summons and 1 complaint, and ther efor e, has no grounds to challeng e the de fault judg ment. 6