Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30309 Su m m ar y Cal endar

R O G E R A N T H O N Y , P la in tiff-A p p e lla n t,

ve r s us C A N A L I N D E M N ITYC O
. ; E W AE H R L IC H , D oi n g B u si n ess as SJ Servi ce; J A N S T A N IS L A W , D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees .

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f o rt he Eas t e r n Di s t r i c to f Lo ui s i ana N o. 2: 07- C V

- 3061

B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH , an d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es . JE R R YE
. SM ITH , C i rcui tJu dg e: *

Thi s c ase a ri ses o uto f a m o t o rv e hi c l e c o l l i s i o n b e t w e e n Rog e rAnt ho ny an d Ja n Stan i sl aw . T h e pa rt i es reached a set t l em en t bef ore a tr i alon the m erUnited States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 2, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 30309

2 i t s , a nd t he di s t r i c tco ur tdi s m i s s e d wi t ho utpr ej udi c e . Ant ho ny f i l e d ac o ns e nt
m o tio n s e e k in gd is m is s a l w ith prej u di ce, w h i ch the di st ri ctcourtgran t ed. D efe n d a n ts s u c c e s s fu ll y m o v e d t o re s c in dth a t o r d e ru n d e rF e d e r a l R u le o f C iv il Pr o c e dur e 6 0(b)
. Ant ho ny ap pe al s . W e r e vi e w f o ra bus e o f

di s c r e t i o n, a nd, f

i ndin gn o n e , w e A F F IR M
.
I. Ant ho ny and hi s w i fe M e l i s s a s ue d St ani s l aw, hi s e m pl o ye rEw a Ehrl i c h,
an d t h ei r i n surer, C an alIn dem n i t y C om pa n y. T h e parti es enter ed i n t o a set t l em e n t a g r e e m e n t t h a t re a d , in p a r t, “I h e r e b y in s tr u c t M Yco u n s e l o f r e c o r dto file
a n ap p rop ri a te m oti on dism i ssingsaidsu i t, w i th pr ejud i ce, w i th e a ch pa rty to bear thei r ow n cos t s of court
. ” D espi t e tha tlangu age, the d i st ri ctcourtentered
an or derdi sm i ss i ng w i t ho utp r eju d ic e . N e i t he rpa r t y o bj e c t e d t o t h e ord e rf o rt e n m o nt hs
. Dur i ng t hatpe r i o d, S tan i slaw a n dE h rl i ch su ed R og er A n th on y a n dh i s i n su ra n ce ca rriers i n state court f or c l ai m s ari si n g f

rom the sam e acci den t
. Stanis l aw an d E h rl i ch did not present t h ose cl ai m s t o t h e di st ri ct court, desp i t e t h e fact t h at t h ey ari se out of t he s am e c aus e o f

a c t i o n. A nt ho ny f

i l e d an E xc e pt i o n of

R e s J udi c at a w i t h t he
s ta te co u r t, a r g u i n gth a t S ta n is la w a n dE h r lic h s h o u ldh a v e p r e s e n te dth e ir
c l ai m s i n f

e de r alc o ur ta s c o m pul s o r y c o unt e r c l ai m s a nd t h at the s e t t l e m e nt agreem en t , com bi n ed w i t h the federalcou rt ’ s d i sm i ssal , b arred t h e st ate c ou rt act i on . T h e st ate c ou rtdi sagreed, rel yi n g i n part on t h e federalcourt ’ s or der of d is m is s a l w ith o u t p r eju d ic e . D i sapp oi n t ed byt h e stat e cou rt ’ s d eci si on , A n t h on y m oved in federalcourt t o reopen a n d t o di sm i ss w ith pr ej udi c e . H e a r gue d t hathe s o ugh tt o e nf o r c e t he
s e t t l e m e nta gr e e m e nt
. Buthe nev e ri nf o r m e d t he di s t r i c tco ur tof t he pe ndi ng st ate court act i on or m en t i on ed hi s i n t en tt o sup pl em en tt h e st ate c ou rtrec ord
o n a p p e a l w ith th e fe d e r a l co u r t’s n e w d is m is s a l. M o s t im p o r ta n tly , h e file dh isN o. 09- 30309

3 m oti on as a con sen t m oti on , l ea d i n g t h e dist ri ct cou rt t o b eli ev e th a t de fen d a n ts hadno o bj e c t i o n t o di s m i s s alw i t h pr ej udi c e . O n t he bas i s o f t hati nf

o r m at i o n, th e co u r t g r a n te dth e m o tio n to d is m is s w ith p r eju d ic e o n th e s a m e d a y . B u tdefen da n t s di d obj ect
. Tw o m on t h s l ater , t h ey f i l ed t h ei r ow n m ot i on t o reopen and asked t h e di st ri ct court t o res ci n d i t s or der di sm i ssi n g w i t h prej udi c e. They s oughtrel i ef u nderrul e 60(b) , al l egi ng t hatt he O r derof D i sm i ss al
w i t h P r ej udi c e w as o bt ai ne d t hr o ugh f r aud , m i s r e pr e s e nt at i o n, o ro t he rm i s c o nd u c t a n dth a t o th e rre a s o n s ju s tifie dre lie f fr o m ju d g m e n t. T h e court h el d a t el eph on e confer en ce an d c on si dered m em oran d a f rom bo t h s i de s . I tt he n r e s c i nde d i t s pr e vi o us o r de rof di s m i s s alw i t h pr ej udi c e a nd
r e i ns t at e d i t s o r i gi nalo r de r , o nc e a ga i n di s m i s s i ng w i t ho utpr ej udi ce. The court’ s expl an ati on f o r its deci si on cam e i n a f oot n ot e t o i t s M i n u t e E n t ry of M ar c h 25, 2009: “ Th e Court ’ s ord er of di sm i ss alw i t h prej udi c e w as s i gned by t hi s C our tw i t houtpl ai nt i f fs’c ounse lnot i f

yi ng t hi s C our tt hatt her e w as an ob

j e c t i o n t o i t
. ” The i s s ue b e f o r e us i s w he t he rt he dec i s i o n t o re s c i nd t he pr e vi o us o r de rund e rr ul e 6 0(b) i s a n a bus e o f di s c r e t i o n.
II. R u le 6 0 (b ) s e e k s a b a la n c e b e tw e e n fin a litya n dju s tic e . S even E l ves, I n c. v. Eskena zi , 6 3 5 F
. 2 d3 9 6 , 4 0 1 (5th C i r. U n i t AJ a n . 1 9 8 1 ). T h e d i scre ti on as to h ow to s t r i ke t hatb al anc e l i e s s qua r e l y w i t h t he di s t r i c tc o ur ta nd wi l lb e r ev e r s e d o n ly fo ra b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Ne w Hamp s h i r eI n s . Co

. v . Ma r t e c h USA , Inc. , 993 F
. 2d 119 5, 120 0 ( 5th C i r. 199 3)
. “Adi st ri ctcourtabu ses i t s di scr et i on i f i tb as e s i t s de c i s i o n o n an e r r o ne o us vi e w o f t he l aw o r o n a c l e ar l y e r r o ne o us a sse ssm en t of th e ev i d en ce.” K enn edy v. T

ex. Ut i ls. , 1 79 F
. 3d 2 58, 2 65 (5t h C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) (in te rn a l qu o ta tion s o m itted ). Th e r ul e 6 0(b) m ot i on see ks re l i ef on t he gr ounds o f

f r aud, m i sr epr es ent at i on o rot herm i sc onductas w el l ot her r eas ons t hat j ust i f y r el i ef f r om t he j udg-N o. 09- 30309

4 m en t
. Th at am ou n t s t o an i n vocati on of subsect i on s 60(b) ( 3) an d ( 6)
. Su bsect i on 60(b) ( 3) provi des rel i ef f rom a f i n al j u dg m en t w h ere t h e adv erse pa rt y obtai n ed j u dg m en tt h ro u g h f rau d, m i srepresentat i on , or ot h er m i scondu ct ; subsect i on 6 0 (b )(6 ) p r o v i d e s re lie f fo r“a n yo th e rre a s o n .” R e lie f u n d e rru le 6 0 (b )(6 ) is
m u tu a llye x c lu s iv e o f r e lie f u n d e ra n yo f th e o th e rs u b s e c tio n s . He s l i ngv . CSX Tran sp. , I

n c. , 3 9 6 F .3 d6 3 2 , 6 4 3 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). D efen da n t s “ can n otobtai n rel i ef un der 60(b) ( 6) w h ere t h e al l egati on s of f rau d or m i scondu ctare es senti al l y t h e i den t i calgroun ds f or rel i ef sough tun der [t h eir] 6 0 (b)( 3 ) m oti on . ” Id
. D e fe nda nt s pr o vi de d t he di s t r i c tc o ur tw i t h g r o unds f or r el i ef onl y u n der rul e 6 0(b) ( 3) an d fai l ed to est abli sh “anyot h er r eason ” f or rel i ef un der rul e 60(b) ( 6)
. In an y even t , defen da n t s di d n otsetf ort h evi den ce of t he so r tof

“ e xt r ao r di nar y c i r c um s t anc e s ” nec e s s ar y t o w ar r antre l i e f und e rt he
r u le 6 0 (b )(6 ) c a tc h a ll p r o v is io n . Se ei d. at 642

- 43. W e t h eref ore r evi ew un der th e sta n d a rd s a p p li ca b le to ru le 6 0 (b )(3). T h e b u r d e n o f p r o v in gfr a u do rm is r e p r e s e n ta tio n u n d e rru le 6 0 (b )(3 ) fa lls
o n th e m o v in gp a r ty , w h ic h m u s t s h o w c le a ra n dc o n v in c in ge v id e n c e . R oz i e rv. F ord Mot or Co. , 573 F .2d 133 2, 133 9 ( 5th C i r. 197 8)
. “ D et erm i n i n g w h et h er a pa rt y h as m ad e a suf f i ci en tshow i n g t o w arran trel i ef l i es i n t h e soun d d i scr et i on o f th e d istri ct cou rt. ” E d w ard s v. C i ty of Hou st on , 78 F
. 3d 983 , 995 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 6 ) (en b a n c) (ci tati on s om i tted). T o p rev a i lon a ru l e 6 0 (b)( 3 ) m oti on , a p a rty
m us te s t ab l i s h ( 1) f

r audo ro t he rm i s c o nduc to n t he par tof t he a dv e r s e pa r t y and (2 ) th a t t h e m o v in gp a r tyd idn o t h a v e th e o p p o r tu n ity to p r e s e n t h is ca s e fu lly
a n dfa ir lya s a re s u lt o f th a t m is c o n d u c t. He s l i ng , 396 F
. 3d at 641

- 42 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ).

III. Th e dist ri c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di sc r et i on i n gr ant i ng t he r ul e 6 0(b)
m ot i on . R oger A n t h on y f i l ed h i s m ot i on as a consen tm ot i on an d l ed the courtN o. 09- 30309

See 9C C H AR L ES AL A N WR I GH T , AR TH UR R. M I LLER & MAR Y K AY K A NE , F ED ERAL PRAC 1 (c ontinu ed
.. .) 5 t o b e l i e ve t hatde fe nda nt s had no o bj e c t i o n t o di s m i s s alw i t h pr ej udi c e . Ant ho ny di d n oti n f

orm t h e courtof

pert i n en tfact s t h at m ot ivated h i s m ot i on s t o reopen an d d i sm i ss w i t h prej u di ce. H e a lso fa i l ed to n ot i f y defenda n t s of

hi s act i on s. In fact , he h ad broug h thi s m ot i on s ex part e an d never n ot i f i ed Stanis l aw , E h rl i ch, or C an alI n dem n i t y of h i s i n t en tto obt ai n di sm i ssalw i t h prej u di ce. G iven th a t A n th on y in ten d ed to u se th e d i sm i ssa lw i th pr ejud i ce to foreclose th e sta te
c o ur tc l ai m s , he s ho ul d hav e kno w n t hat de fe nda nt s w o ul d o bj e c t
. I ns t e ad , he
as s um e d t hat t he l ang uag e o f t he s e t t l e m e nta gr e e m e ntw as s o pl ai n t hata ny o b je c tio n b yd e fe n d a n ts w o u ldb e fu tile
. T h at l egal concl u si on w as n ot f or A n t h on y t o m ak e. H e m i sl ed the court and de pr ive d de fe nda nt s o f t he o ppo r t uni t y t o be he ar d. That i s preci sel y t he
s o r t o f c o n d u c t r u le 6 0 (b ) is m e a n t t o re m e d y . A nt hony c ont ends t hati n l i ghtof the “ c l earan d unam bi guous” l anguage o f th e s e tt le m e n t a g r e e m e n t, it w a s e r r o rfo rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t t o g r a n t t h e ru le 6 0 (b) m oti on , d i sm i ssing th e case w i th ou t p reju d i ce. A n th on y m is in terp rets
w hatt he c o ur tdi d, ho w e ve r : I tdi d no tr ul e o n t he l ang uag e o f t he s e t t l e m e nt agreem en t ; A n t h on y dep rived t h e courtan d h i m sel f of t h at opport u n i t y by fal sel y presenti n g t h at questi on as un contest ed. R ather, t h e court gran t ed the m oti on be ca u se A n th on y h a dpr ev i ou sly m is led the cou rt i n to be l i ev i n g th a t both p a r tie s w a n te dd is m is s a l w ith p r eju d ic e . The di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s b r i e f r e as o ni ng i s su f

f i c i e ntt o j us t i f

y i t s c o nc l us i o n. I n P rovident Lif

e & A cci d ent Insura n ce Co. v. G oel , 27 4 F
. 3 d98 4 , 99 7 -98 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ), th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t p r o v id e a n yre a s o n in gfo rits d e n ia l o f a ru le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n . T h is co u r t n e v e r th e le s s a ffir m e d
. Pro v id en t L ifes t and s f o rt he pr o po s i t i o n t hata di s t r i c tc o ur tne e d no te nt e rf i ndi ngs of

fac ta nd c o nc l us i o ns o f l a w to d e c id e a r u le 6 0 (b ) m o tion
. H e re , th e co u rt p ro v id e dp la in , if b rie f, 1N o. 09- 30309

(...continued) 1 T I C E A ND PRO CED URE § 25 75 (3d ed. 2008) (statingth at findings of fact and conclusions of l aw “areunnecessaryto a rulingona motion for relief from j udgment under Rule60 (b) wh en the legal issues raise d onthe motionare ‘ straightforward and readilycomprehen sible.’” (citing Pro vi den tL if

e , 2 7 4F .3 d at 9 9 8 -9 9))
. 6 reasoni n g an d r e ac he d it s de c i s i o n a f t er hol di n g a tel econfer en ce w i t h t h e parti es a n dr e c e iv i n gw r i t t e n s u b mi s s i o n s f r o m b o t h s i d e s . I n l i g h t o f t h e s e c i r c u ms t anc e s , t he r e i s no a bus e o f di scr et i on ing r ant i ng t he r ul e 6 0(b) m o t i o n. The ju d g m e n t, a c c o r d in g ly , is A F F IR M E D
.