FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MAY 22, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble Pasco M. B owman I I , United States Circuit J udg e for the Eig hth Circuit, sit ting * by desig nation. [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1635 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 02-14108 CV -JCP BI G T O P K O O L E RS , I N C. , aF lor ida Co rp or at ion , NICHOLAS C. BRIENZA, Pl ai nti ff s- A ppe llants , ve rs us CIRC US-MAN SNACKS, INC ., a N ewY ork C or

por at ion , De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (M ay 2 2, 200 8) Be fo re W IL SO N , CO X a nd B O W MA N , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. * COX , C ircuit Judg e:2

I. OVE RV IEW T his appe al is fr om

the dis tr ic t cour

t’ s deni al of a Fe d. R. Ci v. P
. 60( b) m oti on for re lief fr om

j udgm ent filed by

Plaintiffs Big T op Koo l er s , Inc. and Nicholas C. Br ie nz a (c oll ec tiv el y “ Bi g Top ”)
. T he m oti on ass er ts tha t Big T op’ s c ouns el did not
re ce ive not ic e of

af ina l order en te red by

the c ourt, a nd thus did

not ti m el y a sk f or
re he ar ing or fi le a noti ce of ap pe al
. W e fi nd no r ev er sib le e rr or in de nia l of

the m oti on fo r tw o r ea sons . F ir st, the ti m e fo r fi lin g no tic e of appe al ha d no t e xpi re d. A nd,
se co nd, Ru le 60( b) no l onge r pr ovi de s a ba si s to ex te nd the ti m e to f ile anot ic e of
ap p e a l b e c au s e o f

f a i l u r e t o r e c e i v e n o t i c e o f t h e f i n a l j u d g me n t
. We a f

f i rm. II . FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HIST ORY Big Top filed this breach of c ontract ac tion agains t De fendant Circus-Man Sn ac ks, I nc . ( “ Ci rc us- Man” ) inv olv ing anic e cr eam dis tr ibu tor shi p. A ft er

aj ur y tr ia l, the dis tr ic t c ourt e nte re d a n O rd er of Re m itt itur, r em itt ing the $4 93 , 750 ve rd ic t t o $15,850

. In this order, e ntered on May 25, 2004, the court required Big T op to elect whether to accept this rem itted am ount or d em and a n ew trial o n dam ages within ten da y s of the or de r. T he co urt ex pla ine d “ tha t P la int if fs m ust c onse nt t o th is r em itt itur in o rd er fo r it to b e va lid
. I n th e ab se nc e of P la int if fs ’ c onse nt, the c ourt w ill ha ve no al te rn at iv e b ut to ord er a n ew tr ia l.” ( R.3 -1 39 at 5 .)3

On Ju ne 1 0, 2 00 4, B i g T op f i l e d am ot i onf

or r e he a r i ng o n t he r e m i t t itur, obj ec tin g to the or de r of r em itt itur, a nd r eque sti ng a hig he r rem itte d a m ount of da m ag es or , in the al te rn at iv e, ane w tr ia l. Bi g T op f ile d a n a m en de d m oti on f or
re he ar ing on the r em itt itur on J une 15, 200 4, w hic h re qu es te d a hi ghe r am ount of da m ag es . O n N ove m

be r 12, 200 4, the di st ric t court de nie d bo th B ig T op’ s m oti on
an d it s a m en de d m oti on f or r eh eari ng. In ear ly Septem ber 2004, Hurr icane Fr ances, a Ca tegory 3 hurricane, struck Saint Lucie and Martin County , F lorida. About three weeks l ater, Hurr icane Jeanne,
an oth er Ca te gor y 3 st orm , c am e as hor e in th e sa m e ar ea . A cc or din g to Joh n J. A na sta sio , c ouns el fo r Bi g Top , Je an ne de str oy ed his of fi ce a nd f or ce d th e ev ac ua tio n of his hom e. T he da m ag e ca use d by the se hur

rican es m ay part ia lly

e xpl ai n th e ina ct ivi ty in thi s c as e fr om

la te 200 4 th ro ugh earl y

200 6. On Mar ch 9, 2006—the next docket entry after the district court’ s Novem ber 12, 200 4 or de r de ny ing Bi g T op’ s m oti ons fo r re he ar ing —A na sta sio f ile d a ch an ge of address notice with the district court clerk. A lso on Marc h 9, 2006, Big Top filed
a m oti on s ee kin g asc he dul ing or de r an d a n or de r se tti ng the cas e fo r a tr ia l on d amag es , s t at i n g t h at “ [t ]h e d ef en d an t[s i c] re s p o n d ed t h at i t d i d n o t ac ce p t t h e c o u rt ’s
rem it te te r [s ic ] an d re qu es te d a ne w tri al on da m ag es .” (R.4 -1 55 at 1 .)I t a pp e ars tha

t A na sta sio ’s ne w a dd

re ss w a s sim

ply a dd e d to the do c ke t sh e e t, s inc e bo th 1 his old and new addresse s now appear on the docket sheet. It is unclear f rom the re cord if the order wa s se nt t o th e c or

re c t a dd re ss. I n Big Top’s Rule 60 motion, Ana stasio c laimed that he “did not bec ome awa re of the orde r 2 un til Se pte mbe r 2 2, 20 06 a t a c on fe re nc e wi th t

he pla int if

f, ” (R .4 -1 58 a t 2) , a

pp are ntl y a s a re su lt of che ckingPACER. (Appellant’s B rief at 18.) 4 On M ay 10, 2006 , the dis tr ic t co urt de nie d Bi g T op’ s m oti on se ek ing a
sc he dul ing or de r an d a tr ia l se tti ng. T he co urt re as one d tha t Bi g T op h ad “ im pli ed ly opted” to ac cept the rem ittitur in the first place since it did not tim ely advise the court tha t i t wante d a new tr ia l or fi le anot ic e of appe al
. T he c ourt r ea sone d th at Bi g T op ha d “ w ai ve d a ri ght to a re tr ia l of thi s c as e. ” (R
. 4- 156 at 2- 3. ) T he or de r the n sa id:

“ O RD E RE D a nd A D JU D G E D tha t P la int if f’ s M oti on f

or S ch eduli ng O rd er

a nd t o Set T rial is D EN IE D. T he previouslyentered O rder of Rem ittitur stand s as the final
or de r of thi s c o u rt
. T h e C l e rko f t h e C o u rts h a l l c l o s e t h i s c a s e f o r l a c ko f t i m el y pr os ecu ti on on th e p art of t he Pla in ti ff.” (R .4-1 56 at 3 .) A na sta sio say s th at

he ne ve r re ce ive d notic e of thi s or de r, a lle ge dly

be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt c le rk

did not c hange hi s a ddr es s a s r eque ste d. H e as se rt s th at he 1 be cam e aw ar e of

the or de r in Se pte m

be r 2006
. A t this poi nt, Bi g T op f ile d am oti on 2“(a ) Corre ctions Ba sed on Clerica l Mistakes; Oversig hts and Omissions. The court may 3 c or re c t a c le ri c a l mi sta

ke or a mis take ari sin g fr om ov e rs ig ht or omi ssi on wh e ne ve r o ne is f ound in a judg ment, order , or other pa rt of the rec ord. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or wi t h o u tn o t i ce . Bu taf

t er an ap p ea l h as b ee n d o ck et ed i n t h e ap p el l at e c o u rt an d wh i l e i ti s p en d i n g, such a mistake ma

y be cor rec ted only

with the appellate court’s le ave.” Fe d. R. Civ. P . 60(a)
. “ (b ) G ro un ds fo r Re lie f fr om a Fi na l J ud g me nt, Or de r, or Pr oc e e din g . On moti on and jus t 4 terms, the cour

t may relieve a par

ty or its leg al re prese ntative fr o m a final judg ment, order , or proce eding for the following rea sons: (1) mistake, inadve rtenc e, surpr ise, or excusable ne g lect; . . . .” F ed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). I n B ig T o p ’ s n o ti c e o f a

p p e a l, it c h ar a c te r iz e s th is o r d e r a s “ th e M ay 2 0 , 2 0 0 6 ” o r d e r . We 5 assume that it meant May 10, 2006, since ther e wa s no order on May 20, 2006. 5 fo r re lie f f

r o m j u d g m e n tu n d e r

F e d
. R
. C i v . P
. 6 0 ( a ) a n d( b ) ( 1 ) o n S e p t e m b e r 25, 3 4 2006
. ( R. 4- 158. ) I n th is m oti on, Bi g T op s ough t “ to ha ve the or de r re en te re d to a llo w fo r tim el y rehe ar ing a nd a ppe lla te r em ed ie s, ” sin ce it did not r ec ei ve not ic e of

the May 10, 2006 or de r. ( R. 4- 158 at 3. ) T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d B ig T op’ s m oti on o n O ct obe r 24, 200 6. ( R. 4- 162. ) T he c ourt’ s r at ion al e w as sim ilar to tha t i n it s M ay 10, 2006 or de r, a nd the c ourt sa id tha t the m oti on w as unt im el y a nd w ith out

m er it. T he
co urt i ne xpl ic ab ly ign or ed Bi g T op’ s co nte nti on tha t i t ne ve r re ce ive d no tic e of the
co ur t’s Ma y

10 , 20 06 ord er. O n N o v e m

b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 6 , B i g T o p f

i l e dan o t i c e o f

ap p e a l
. T h e f

o c u s o f Bi g To p ’s ap p e a l i s o n t h e d e n i a l o f r e l i e f u n d e r R u l e 6 0 ( b )

–n o tR

u l e 6 0 ( a )
. S p e c i f

i c a l l y, Bi g T op c ha lle nge s ( 1) the N ove m be r 12, 200 4 or de r de ny ing it s m oti on f or r eh eari ng on the rem ittitur order; (2) the May 10, 2006 order deny ing Big T op’s m otion for a 5 schedulin g order and a trial setting ; and (3) the district court’ s October 24, 2006 orderSeeFe d. R. App. P. 3(a)(1) ; 4(a)( 1)(A)
. 6 6 de ny ing it s R

ule 60( b) m oti on. A m oti ons pane l of thi s c ourt di sm iss ed

f or la ck of ap pell at e j ur isd ic tio n B ig T op’ s a ppe al a s to the N ove m

be r 12, 200 4 a nd M ay

10, 2006 orders, because Big Top had not filed a tim ely notice of appeal. The co urt 6 allowed th is appeal t o proceed only as to the district court’ s October 24, 2006 order de ny ing Bi g T op’ s R

ule 60( b) m oti on. III. STA ND AR

D O F REVIE W W e r e v i e w a d i s tr i c t c o u rt ’ s d e n i a l o f a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) m o t i o n f

o r a n ab u se of di sc ret io n. See Turn er v. Sec’y of the Air F orce , 944 F. 2d 80 4, 807 (11th Cir. 1991); Ja ck son v. P eo

ple ’s R ep ubl ic of Ch ina , 794 F. 2d 14 90, 1494 (11t h Cir. 1986 ). IV. CON TEN TIONS OF THE P AR TIES Bi g Top ar gue s that the dis tr ic t cour t abus ed its dis cr et ion in d en y ing it s R ule 60(b) m otion because the court (1) did not cons ider the basis for the m otion ; (2) fa iled to c onsi de r ap pr opr ia te fa ct or s in exe rc isi ng i ts d isc re tio n; ( 3) f ai le d to c onsi de r the equit ie s; and ( 4) ba se d it s de nia l of the m oti on o n f

ac tua l e rr or s. Ci rc us- Man cont en ds tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n be ca

use Bi g T op’ s c ouns el r ep ea te dly dela y ed a nd w as not

dil ige nt i n tr ac kin g th e sta tus of the c as e. Ci rc us- Man a lso a rg ue s th at F ed
. R. App. P. 4( a) (6 ) pr ovi de s the only m eans of e xte ndi ng the ti m e fo r an ap pe al ba se d onf ai lur e to r ec ei ve not ic e. F ina lly , Ci rc us-7

Man contends th at the May 10, 2006 order was not an order that Big Top was e ntitled to have the district court set aside. V. DISC US SION This appeal fr om

denial of Rule 60(b) relief is tim ely . N otice of appeal w as fi le d w ith in thirty

da y s of the den ia l of

the m oti on. W e m

ust , how ev er , de te rm ine
w he n af ina l j udgm en t w as e nte re d th at started the thi rty -d ay

appe al c loc k. T he pa rt ie s di sa gr ee about

thi s, a nd w e dis ag re e w ithboth part ie s. Ci rc us- Man c ont en ds tha t the N ove m be r 12, 2004 or de r w as af ina l j udgm en t, and that the tim e to appeal ran from this date. W e re

j ect this argum ent. T his order sim ply de nie d Big T op’ s m oti on see kin g a reh eari ng as to the re m itt itur or de r, a nd d id
no th in g m or e. (R.4 -1 50 .) Bi g T op c ont en ds tha t the or de r of May 10, 200 6 ( w hic h it s c ouns el a sse rt s he did not r ec ei ve ) w as af

ina l j udgm en t. W e ag re e that thi s w as af ina l j udgm en t. T his
or de r, a s pr ev iou sly

not ed , sa id tha t B ig T op h ad “ im pli ed ly opt ed ” to a cc ep t the
re m itt itur, a nd d ir ec te d the cl er k to c los e the f

ile
. C onc lud ing tha t this May 10, 200 6 order w as a final j udgm ent, howe ver, does not end our inqui ry ; we m ust decide when it was e nt ered
. Bi g T op c om

pla ins , both init s Ru le 60( b) m oti on and o n th is a ppe al , tha t the district court did n ot properly enter final j udgm ent under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 : “ Ever y8

jud gm en t an d a m en de d ju dg m en t m us t b e se t o ut in a se pa rat e d oc um en t . . . .”

“ [C] ases from both the Suprem e Court and the circuit courts of appeal m ake it clear tha t the ti m e to f

ile a not ic e of ap pe al doe s no t be ginto run un til ase pa ra te j udgm en t is en te red pu rs ua nt to Ru le 58 .” R ey nolds v

. G old en Co rr alCo rp. , 213 F
. 3d 1 344, 1346 (11th Cir. 2000). The r ecord supports Big Top’ s cont en t ion th at the district
co urt f ai le d to e nte r a se pa ra te doc um en t an noun ci ng fi na l j udgm en t un de r Ru le 58,
as th e d oc ke t s he etdo es no t re fle cten try of a s ep arat e fi na l ju dg m en t. But, Rule 58 provides an alternative m eans of determ ining whe n t h e final j udgm en t i s de em ed

e nte re d: “ [J ] udgm en t i s e nte re d a t the fo ll owi ng tim es : . . . ( 2) if a separ ate docum ent is required, w hen the judgm ent is e ntered in the civil do cket unde r Ru le 79( a) a nd the earl ie r of the se ev en ts oc cu rs : (A ) it is se t ou t i n ase pa ra te docum ent; or (B) 150 days have run from the entry in the civil docket
. ” Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 58(c) ( em

phasis add ed). Bec ause no separate docum ent was e ntered, final j udgm en t i n this ca se w as de em ed en te re d 150 day s af te r the or de r w as e nte re d inthe civil docket, on May

10, 2006, resulting in a final j udgm ent in October 2006, severa l
w ee ks aft er Bi g T op f

ile d it s R ule 60( b) m oti on. Notw ithstand ing Big Top’ s com plaint about the district court’ s failure to enter the j udgm en t on a se pa ra te doc um en t, Bi g T op’ s R ule 60( b) m oti on, a nd i ts b ri ef on th is ap peal , a ssu m e tha t the 30- da y appe al c loc k be ga n r

unni ng o n M ay

10, 200 6,9

wh en t h e f

i n al o rd erwa s en t er ed o n t h e c i v i l d o ck et . Of co u rs e, Bi g To p ’s
ac know le dgm en t tha t the ti m e fo r ap peal ha d no t r un w oul d ne ce ssari ly

ha ve de m onstra te d th at

it ha d no ne ed

f or the post -j udgm en t re lie f tha t its m oti on s ough t. Ru le 60( b) w as not an ap pr opr ia te ve hic le fo r Bi g T op t o se ek r el ie f fr om

the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s M ay

10, 200 6 or de r. “ L ac k of notic e of the en tr y doe s not a ff

ec t the tim e fo r ap pe al or

r el ieve —o r au tho ri ze the c ourt t o r el ie ve —apa rty f or f ai lin g to ap pe al w ith in the tim e al low ed , ex ce pt as al low ed by Fe de ra l Ru le of Appe lla te Pr oc ed ur e 4( a)
. ” Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 77( d) (2 ). If Bi g Top w an te d to e xte nd the ti m e to f ile
anappe al , it

sho uld ha ve f ile d am oti on u nde r Fe d. R. App. P
. 4( a) (6 ): 6. Reo peni ng the Ti m e to Fil e a n Appea l. The dis t ri ct co urt m ay re ope n th e tim e to f

ile a n a ppe al f or a pe rio d of 14 da y s a ft er the da te w he n it s o r d e r

t o r e o p e n i s e n t e r e d , b u to n l y i f a l l t h e f

o l l o w ing co ndi tio ns are sa tis fi ed : (A ) the co urt fi nds tha t the m ovi ng p ar ty did not rece ive notice und er F ederal R ule of Civil Procedure 77(d) of the entry of the ju d g m ent or order sought to be appealed w ithin 21 day s after entry ; (B) the m otion is filed within 180 d ay s after the j udgm ent or order is entered and within 7 day s after the m ovin g party rec eives notice und er Federa l Rule of Civil Proce dure 77(d) of the entry , w hichever is earlier ; an d ( C) the c ourt f

ind s th at no p ar ty w oul d be pr ej udi ce d. In V en co r H ospi tal s, I nc . v . Sta ndard L ife & A cc ide nt I nsuranc e Co

. , 279 F
. 3d 1306 ( 11th Cir
. 2002 ), V en co r H ospi ta ls fi le d a m oti on u nde r Ru le 60( b) a ski ng the district court to allow i t to appeal after the expiration of Rule 4(a)( 6)’ s 180-day lim ita tio n, be ca

use it ha d no t r ec ei ve d n ot ic e of the f ina l or de r. W e af

fi rm ed the10

dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of

60( b) r el ie f an d he ld tha t Ru le 4( a) (6 ), apr oduc t of a199 1
am endm ent, provides the only vehicle for extend ing the tim e to file notice of appeal be ca use of la ck of not ic e of the fi na l j udgm en t: “ Ru le 4( a) (6 ) pr ovi de s th e ex cl usi ve
m ethod for extending a party ’ s tim e to a ppeal for failure to re ceive ac tual noti ce that a j udgm ent or order has been enter ed.” Id

. a t 1 3 1 1
. B i g T o p a r g u e s , f o r t h e f i r s tt i me in its reply

brief, that the Rule 60(b) m otion shoul d be rechar acter ized as a Ru l e 4
m oti on, not ing th at it s w as f ile d w ith in 1 80 d ay s of

the e ntr y of the f ina l j udgm en t
an d th er ef

or e w as ti m el y

und er Ru le 4( a) (6 ). W e de cl ine to ad dr es s an ar gum en t ad va nc ed by an ap pe ll an t fo r th e fi rs t t im e in a rep ly brie f. See United States v. Lev y , 379 F.3 d 1241 , 124 4 ( 11th C ir
. 200 4) ( “ [T his c ourt] r ep ea te dly ha s r ef use d to consider issu es raised for th e first tim e in an appellant’ s reply brief. ”). Furtherm ore,
no su ch arg um en t was ad va nc edin th e d is tri ctco ur t. VI. CON CLU SION W e ar e una ble to affirm

based on the dis trict court’ s reasoning. But, w e can affir m “ on any ground that finds su pport in th e re cord.” Lucas v. Grainger, Inc. , 257 F. 3d 1249, 1256 (1 1th Ci r. 200 1) ( quot ing Ja ffk e v. D unha m , 352 U
. S. 280 , 281 , 77 S. Ct. 307, 308 (1 957)) (internal quotation m arks om itted). T his r ec or d su ppor ts denial of the m otion on two grounds
. First, post-judgm en t relief could have been properly denied because Big Top’ s tim e for filing notice of ap peal h ad not run when11

it filed its Rule 60(b) m otion
. Second, Rule 60(b) cannot be used to ac com plish what Bi g T op s ough t, tha t i s, a n e xte nsi on o f tim e to ap pe al ba se d up on f ai lur e to r ec ei ve not ic e of the j udgm en t. AFFIRMED.