2008 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

7-28-2008 

# B udget B lind s Inc v

. Whit e
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-2610

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght 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 ept e d for inclusion in 2008 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

" B ud g e t B l ind s Inc v

. Whit e " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 749. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/749P 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
C as e N o: 06- 2610
B U D G E T B L IN D S , IN C ., A ppel l ant

v. VA LERI E W HI TE; B U D G E T B L IN D S O F N J , IN C .; VAL U BLI NDS, I NC.

C as e N o: 06- 2733
BUDGET BL I NDS, I NC.

v. VA LERI E W HI TE; B U D G E T B L IN D S O F N J , IN C .; V A L U B L IN D S , IN C ., A p p e llan ts2 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 i s t r i ctC our tN o. 05- m c- 00388 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e W i l l i am J. M ar t i ni

A r gued A pr i l 9, 2008 B efor e: SM I T H , H A R D I M A N , and C O W E N , C i r cui tJudges
H ow ar d A

. M at al on, E s q. Str yk e r , Ta ms & Di l l , LLP T w o P enn P l aza E ast N ew ar k, N J 07105- 0000
J er emi ah J

. M or gan, E s q. ( ar gued) Br y a n Ca v e LLP 1200 M ai n St r eet 3500 O ne K ans as C i t yPl ace K ans as C i t y , M S 64105- 2100
C ouns el f orB udget

B l i nds , I nc. R onal d J

. N el s on, E s q. ( ar gued) 161 W as hi ngt on V al l eyR oad S u it e 2 0 7 , W ash ing ton V all eyO ff ice P ark W arr en, N J 07059- 0000
C o u n se l fo r V

a ler ie W h ite, e t a l.3 ( Fi l ed: J ul y28, 2008)

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge.
I n t hi s appea l , w e cons i der w h et hera fe der al di s t r i ct co u rtp rop erlyreli ed o n F ed era l R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 60( b) ( 6) t o vaca t e a defa ul t j udgm entent er ed byanotherdi s t r i ct cour t

. W e conc l ude t hat i t di d not , and w e w i l l r emand so that i tm aycons i derw hethert o s etas i de the defaul t j udgm entunder F ed era l R u le of

C ivil P roc ed u re 6 0 (b)(4 ).

I.
B udgetB l i nd s, Inc. ( “B B I ”) i s a C al i forni a corpor at i on t hatfr anchi s es m obi l e w i ndow cover i ng bus i nes s es t hr oughout t he U ni t ed St at es . A cc o rdin g t o an af fi davi tt hatB B I ’ s C hi ef O per at i ng O fficer fi l ed w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tfort he C entr al D i s t r i ctof C al i forni a, B B I w as founded i n 1992 and had about 800 t err it o ri es and 570 l i cens ees nat i onw i de as of O ct ober17, 2 0 0 5 , t h e d a t e o f t h e a f f i d a v i t

. BB I o wn s a n d l i c e n s e s t wo t r ademar ks t hati thas r egi s t er ed w i t h the P r i nci pal R egi s t erof t he Un i t e d S t a t e s P a t e n ta n d Tr a d e ma r k Of f i c e : ( 1 ) t h e n a me “B u d g et B li n d s” (reg ist ere d o n D ec em b er 2 1 , 1 9 9 3 ); an d (2) a4 s er vi ce mar k cons i s t i ng of the w or ds “B udgetB l i nds ” in a s peci fi c fontand conf i gur at i on ( r egi s t er ed on February18, 2 0 0 3 ).
V al erie W h it e o w n s a N ew Jerse yco rpo rat i on cal l ed “V al U B l i nds , I nc. ” thatfocus es on t he des i gn an d i ns t al l at i on of
w in d o w b lin d s. A c c o rd in g to a n a f f id a v it th a t W h ite f

iled w ith t he D i s t r i ctC our tfor t he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey , s he oper at es t hi s bus i nes s fr om a home o ff ice i n herbas ement and gar age, a n d h e r sa les a re lim ited to a re a s o f N e w Je rse y . T h e a f f id a v it fur thers t at es t hats he conduc t ed bus i nes s fr om 1988 t o J une 1, 2004 as “B udgetB l i nds ” or“B udgetB l i nds of N J , ” and t hats he re g iste re d h e r b u sin e ss a s a N e w Je rse yd o m e stic c o rp o ra tio n in S ep tem b er 1 9 9 7 u n d er the n am e “ B u d g et B li n d s o f N J, In c .” S h e c h a n g e d h e r b u sin e ss ’s n a m e to “ V a l U B lin d s” p u rsu a n t to t h e S e t t l e me n tAg r e e me n tt h a twe d e s c r i b e b e l o w.
I n a l et t ert o V al er i e W hi t e dat ed N ovember 25, 2003, BBI ’ s Le g a l M a n a g e rs t a t e d t ha t W h i t e ’ s u s e o f t h e n a me “B udgetB l i nds ” w as a vi ol at i on of B B I ’ s “fe der al, stat e, and c o m m o n la w tra d e m a rk rig h ts” a n d w a s lik e lyto c a u se p u b lic confus i on aboutt he or i gi n of W hi t e’ s goods

. W hi t e’ s at t or ney R onal d J

. N el s on r es ponded i n a l et t erdat ed D ece m ber1, 2003 t hatW hi t e had use d t he name “B udgetB l i nds ” s i nce 1988, pr i or to B B I’s f

irst u se o f th e n a m e . N e lso n ’s le tter a d d e d th a t W h ite h a d e sta b lish e d “ B u d g e t B lin d s” a s a co m m o n law tra d e m a rk in the N ew Jerse yco u n ti es se rve d b yh er b u sine ss an d that B B I’s fr anchi s ees i n t hi s ar ea w ere i nfr i ngi ng herr i ght s byus i ng t he5 n am e. In a let ter t o N els o n d ated F eb rua ry1 2 , 2 0 0 4 , B B I’s co u n sel q u esti o n ed the e x ist en ce o f a c o m m o n law tr ad em ark a n d sta ted th a t “ B B I i s p re p a re d to b rin g a law su it i n C a lifo rn ia pur s u a n tt o t h e La n h a m A c tt o e n j o i n y o u rc l i e n t ’ s i n f

r i ngi ng a c tiv iti e s” if th e p a rties c o u ld n o t re a c h a m u tu a lly -a g re e a b le re s o lu tio n . A fter se ver al addi t i onal comm uni cat i ons , t he part i es ent er ed a Sett l ement A gr eementon A pr i l 14, 2004. U ndert he A gr eement , B B I w oul d pay W hi t e and B udgetB l i nds of N J , I nc. ( r efe r r ed to as “the C orpor at i on” i n t he A gr eement ) $160, 000 “fort he pur chas e a n d t r ans ferof anyand al l i nt er es t , cl ai m , or o w n e rs h ip in o r relat ing to the tr ad e n am e a n d serv ice m ark ‘B ud get B l i nd s’ ” and anycon fusi ng l ysi m i l ar nam es or m arks. Sect i on 4 of the A gr eementpr o v ide d t hataft erJ une 1, 2004, W hit e and t he C orporat i on “shal l no top erat e or do bu si ness” under t he tr ade na m e and s er vi ce mar k “B udgetB l i nds ” “orany ot hername or i n anym annert hatm i ghtt end t o gi ve the gene r al publ i c the i m pr es s i on t hatW hi t e [or her bus i nes s ] i s i n anyw ay as s oci at ed oraff

i l i at ed w i t h B B I , oran y of the bus i nes s es c o n d u c te d b yit o r o th e r f ra n c h is e e s o r l ic e n s e e s o f th e M a rk s .” A m ong ot hert hi ngs , Sect i on 4 r equi r ed W hi t e t o change her exi s t i ng corpor at i on’ s name fr om “B udgetB l i nds of N ew Jer sey , Inc. ” t o “B B of N J, Inc. , ” t o cond uct al l futur e bu si ness us i ng a new corpor at i on t o be es t abl i s hed undert he name “V al U Bl i n d s , I n c . , ” a n d t o r e mo v e t h e “ Bu d g e tBl i n d s ” t r a d e n a me and mar k, as w el l as confus i ngl y s i m i l ar names orm ar ks , fr om hercompany ’ s advert i s i ng, s i g n s , l e tt erheads , s t at i onery , pr i nt edT h e A g re e m e n t re f e rs to th e s e lis tin g s a s “ a d v e rt is e m e n ts ,” 1 a t er m w hos e connot at i ons m aybe mi s l eadi ng. A ccor di ng t o t he A gr eementi t s el f, t he “a dver t i s ement s ” cons i s t ed s i m pl yof her c o m p a n y ’s n a m e a n d p h o n e n u m b e r in a n a lp h a b e tica l li st w ith othercom pan i es’ nam es and n um bers. 6 m a tter, a n d o th e r f

o rm s. M o st im p o rta n tlyf o r p u rp o se s o f

th is lit igat i on , S ect i on 4(f) of the A greem ent al so i nst ruct ed W h ite t o t a k e s p e c i f

i c s t e p s t o d i s a s s o c i a t e h e rc o mpa n y ’ s t e l ephone num berfr om t he na m e “B udgetB l i nds

. ” A tt he t i m e of the A gr eement , t he Y

el l ow P ages di r ect or i es fo r B ur l i ngt on, G l ouces t er , and C amden C ount i es l i s t ed a phone num berfor W h i t e ’ s c o mp a n y n e x t t o t h e n a me “ Bu d g e t Bl i n d s . ” To 1
a d d re ss th is situ a tio n , S e c tio n 4 (f ) o f th e A g re e m e n t p ro v id e d in re lev a n t p a rt:
P ro m p tlya f

ter e x e c u tio n o f

th is A g re e m e n t, W h ite, th e C o rp o r a tio n a n d V a l-U B lin d s s h a ll dir ectV eri zon . . . i n w ri t i ng , w i t h a co pyto cou n sel forB B I

. . . , ( i ) t hatal l of the s ai d t hr ee a d v e rtise m e n ts s h a ll n o t b e re n e w e d in th e sa id t hr e e c o u n t ye d i t i o n s , o re l s e whe r e ; a n d ( i i ) t hat cus t om er s cal l i ng di r ect or yas s i s t ance i n anyof t hos e thr ee c ount i es ( oranyw her e el s e) on oraft er J une 1, 2004, s houl d no l onger be gi ven [the phone number forW hi t e’ s company ] oranyot her num berr el at ed t o oraff i l i at ed w i t h W hi t e, t he C orp o r at i on, orV al

- U B l i nds i n r es pons e t o an i nqui r yfort he t el ephone num berof “Budget7 B l i nds

. ” Fr om t i m e-t o- t i m e ther eaf t er , upon t he r eason ab le req u est o f B B I, W h it e, th e C orpor at i on and V al

- U B l i nds s hal l pr ovi de s i m i l arw r i t t en di r ect i ons t o ot her di r ect or ypubl i s her s ( i ncl udi ng publi sh ers o f In terne t- b ase d “d ir ec tori es ”) id e n tif ie d b yB B I.
I n addi t i on t o t hes e s u bs t ant i ve pr ovi s i ons , t he A gr eements t at ed t hatW hi t e and he rcorpor at i ons “her ebyi r r evoc abl yappoi nt B B I a s th e ir re sp e c tiv e law f u l atto rn e y -in -f

a c t w ith a u th o rityto fi le a n ydocument i n t he name of and on be hal f of W hi t e, t he C orpor at i on orV al

- U B l i nds fort he purpos e of t aki ng anyof the a c tio n s re q u ir e d b yth is S e c tio n 4 u p o n th e e v e n t o f a D e f a u lt.” F in a lly , the A g re e m e n t c o n tain e d a c h o ice -o f -la w c lau se : “T h is Set t l ement A gr eementw i l l be governed by and cons t rued under t he l aw s of the St at e of Cal i forni a. ”
W h ite s a y s th a t sh e m a d e a g o o d -f a ith e f f o rt to c o m p ly w ith h e r o b lig a tio n s u n d e r th e A g re e m e n t, i n c lu d in g th o se in S ec ti o n 4 (f) related to h er telep h o n e n u m b er. T h e re co rd c o n tain s a lette r d a ted M a y 5 , 2 0 0 4 f ro m W h ite’s a tto rn e yto V er i z o n Cus t o me rSe r v i c e d i r e c t i n g Ver i z o n “ n o tt o r e n e w or r epubl i s h theirexi s t i ng advert i s ement s i n al l Y el l ow Pages ( i ncl udi ng B ur l i ngt on, G l ouces t er , C amden and M i ddl es ex C ount yedi t i ons ) i n w hi ch they h av e us ed the phr as e ‘ B udget B lin d s’ in w h o le o r i n p a rt.” T h e lette r a lso d ire c ts V e riz o n “ to i ns t ructD i r ect or yA s s i s t ance , begi nni ng J une 1, 2004, t o ans w er al l i nqui r i es for‘ B udgetB l i nds ’ bynotpr ovi di ng t he t el ephone n u m b ers o f m y cli en t

. . . . ” T h e reco rd i n clud es si m il ar lett ers addr es s ed t o Y el l ow Pages

. com and V er i zon. com, bot h of w hi ch a re d a te d J u n e 4 , 2 0 0 4

.T he C om pl ai ntdoes notr efl ectt he fa ctt hatW hi t e had 2 a lre a d yc h a n g e d th e n a m e f ro m “ B u d g e t B lin d s o f N J, In c .” to 8 N onethel es s , V er i zon r epr i nt ed t he l i s t i ng t hatpr ovi ded t he phone numberforW hi t e’ s companyundert he name “B udget B l i nd s” i n the upd at ed pri nt edi t i on s of i t s Y el l ow P ages di r ect or i es forB ur l i ngt on, G l ouces t er , and C amden C ount i es and the corr es p o n d ing onl i ne di r ect or i es . I n a l et t erdat ed February1, 2005, B B I ’ s couns el i nfor m ed W hi t e’ s couns el t hat t he cont i nui ng exi s t ence of t hes e l i s t i ngs w as a vi ol at i on of the A g re e m e n t, an d th a t “ it a p p e a rs th a t th e o n ly w a y to re m e d yth is vi ol at ion i s fory ourcl i entt o as s i gn t o B B I ort o a fr anchi s ee d e s i g n a t e d b y B B I ” t h e t e l e p h o n e n u m b e r f o rW h i t e ’ s c o m p a n y. I n r es pons e, W hi t e’ s couns el pr opos ed s et t i ng up a r ecor di ng t hatw oul d gi ve ca l l er s t o t hi s t el ep h one number a choi ce b e t we e n c o n n e c t i n g t o W h i t e ’ s c o mp a n yo rt o t h e l oc a l BBI fra n ch isee. B B I rejected this p rop o sal in a lett er d ated F eb rua ry 2 3 , 2 0 0 5 , reite ra tin g its d e m a n d th a t W h ite as sig n th e n u m b e r to B B I a n d st at i ng t hat i t w ou l d deem W hit e and her com pan yto be i n br eac h of the A gr eement“as l ong as t her e i s any ci r cumst ance underw hi ch a pe r s on loo k ing i n a curr ent t e l e p h o n e b o o k a n d c a l l i n g a n u mb e rl i s t e d u n d e rt h e n a me
‘ B udget B l i nds ’ w i l l r eac h y our cl i ent s . ” In a l et t erdat ed M ar ch 9 , 2 0 0 5 , W h ite’s c o u n se l in f o rm e d B B I th a t, alth o u g h W h ite w o u ld d o e v e ry th in g th a t sh e c o n sid e re d “ re a so n a b lyp o ss ib le to m i t i gat e fu ll yt he ef

fec t s of the unauthor i zed r e- pr i nt i ng, ” s he w oul d nots ur r endert he phone numberi t s el f.
B B I f ile d a C o m p la in t a g a in s t W h ite , V a l U B lin d s , In c ., and B ud g etB l i nds of N J , I nc. ( “D efe ndant s ”) , w hi ch w as 2“ B B o f N J , In c .” B B I ’ s C o m p lain t d o e s n o t ex p licitlyd e m a n d th a t W h ite 3 surr end er the p ho ne n um ber t o B B I oron e of it s fr anch i sees. I ns t ead, i tr eques t s t hatW hi t e and her company be enj oi ned and re stra in e d f

ro m v io latin g th e A g r e e m e n t, “w h ich re q u ire s, in s um m ary , w i t houtl i m i t at i on, t hatt he D efe n d ant s di s cont i nue t he us e and/ or di s pl ay of t he B udget B l i nds M ar ks o r si m i l ar m a rk s o r t ra d e n a m e s , in a n ym a n n e r w h a ts o e v e r.” 9 docket ed on A pr i l 7, 2005 i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor t he C entr al D i s t r i ctof C al i forni a, S o ut hern D i vi s i on. T he C om pl ai ntl i s t s ei ghtcaus es of ac t i on: ( 1) br eac h of contr act ; ( 2) s peci fi c per for m ance; (3) f eder al t r ademar k i nfr i ngement ; ( 4) s t at e tr ademar k i nfr i ngement ; ( 5) fede ral fal s e des i gnat i on of o ri g in; ( 6 ) fe d e ral trad em ark d il u ti o n ; ( 7 ) st ate trad em ark di l ut i on; and ( 8) vi ol at i on of the C al i forni a U nfai rC om pet i t i on A ct

. A s r el i ef, B B I r eques t ed an i nj un ct i on agai ns tfur t her vi ol at i on of the agr eement , actual and puni t i v e d am ages , an 3 a c c o u n tin g o f

d e f e n d a n ts’ p ro f

its, tre b le d a m a g e s, c o sts o f su it, at t or ney s ’ fee s , and pr e- j udgm enti nt er es t

. T he C om pl ai nt a ss e rts th a t v e n u e is p ro p e r in th e C e n tra l D istric t o f C a lifo rn ia “bec ause a s ubs t ant i al par tof the eve nt s gi vi ng r i s e t o B udget B lin d s’ c la im s o c c u rre d w ith in th is D istric t in th a t th e h a rm to B u d g e t B lin d s h a s o c c u rre d in th is d istric t an d th e D e f e n d a n ts hav e i ntent i on al l y dir ect ed t heir act i on s tow ard B ud get B l i nd s, w hi ch i s headqua r t er ed i n t hi s D i s t r i ct

. ” The D efe ndant s di d not fi l e a r es pons e t o t he C om pl ai nteven t h o u g h B B I s entt hem not i ce of i t

. W hi t e’ s couns el char act er i zes t hi s as an i nt ent i onal d e c isio n , m o tiv a ted in p a rt b yW h ite’s lim ited re so u rc e s, toT hi s amount r efl ect s $68, 613. 75 fortr eb le d am ag es and 4 $14, 469. 76 forat t or ney s ’ fee s and cos t s . B B I ’ s pr opos ed or der r eque s t e d $ 1 0 5 , 9 5 4

. 7 6 i n mon e t a r yr e l i e f , whi c h wou l d h a ve refl ect ed an add i t i on al $2 2, 87 1. 25 i n co m pen sat orydam ages, butt he C al i forni a di s t r i ctco u r tdel et ed thi s amount fr om t he f in a l O rd e r. 10 ign o re the C o m p lai n t on the g rou n d that the C ali fo rnia c o u rt a lle g e d ly la c k e d p e rs o n a l ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h e D e f e n d a n ts

. O n O ct ober7, 2005, t he D is t r i ctC our tforthe C entr al D i s t r i ctof C al i forni a ent ere d a def aul tj udgm entagai ns tt he D efe ndant s , gr ant i ng B B I t he i nj unct i ve re l i ef t hati tr eques t ed i n i t s Co mp l a i n ta n d $8 3 , 0 8 3

. 5 1 i n mo n e t a r yr e l i e f

. BBI 4
r egi s t er ed thi s defa ul tj udgm enti n t he D i s t r i ctC o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s eyon N ovember 22, 2005. O n J anuary20, 2006, B B I gave t he D efe ndant s not i ce t hati tw oul d fi l e a mot i on on F eb ruary14 i n t he D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ew Jerse y fo r an o rde r d ir ec ti n g the tu rno v er of fu n d s fro m W h it e’s chec ki ng acc ountt o B B I i n t he amount s peci fied i n t he j udgm ent

. O n J anuary24, t he D efe ndant s gave not i ce thatt hey w o u ld f ile a c ro ss -m o tio n in th e N e w Je rse yD istric t C o u rt to vaca t e the def

aul t j udgm ent , and theyfi l ed a Bri ef i n oppos i t i on to the turn o v er m o ti o n an d in su p p o rto f th e c ross -m o ti o n . In t hi s B r i ef, t he D efe ndant s as s er t ed thatt h e d ef aul tj udgm ent s houl d be dec l ar ed nul l and voi d beca us e the C al i forni a di s t r i ct cour thad l acke d per s onal j ur i s di ct i on overt hem. I n s uppor tof t hi s B r i ef, W hi t e subm i t t ed an affi davi texpl ai ni ng in tera lia t hat nei t hers he norherco m p anyhad eve rphy s i cal l yent er ed C a lifo rn ia, o w n e d p ro p e rtyin C a lifo rn ia, s o licite d b u sin e ss in11 C al i forni a, pur chas ed or s ol d anygoods i n C al i forni a, oreven m aintaine d an interne t w eb sit e. B o th the B ri ef an d W h it e’s aff i davi tas s er t ed that an ea r l i erdr aftof the A gr eement cont ai ned a pr ovi s i on gr ant i ng W hi t e’ s cons entt o per s onal j ur i s di ct i on i n the C entr al D i s t r i ctof C al i forni a but t hatt he D efe ndant s r efus ed t o al l ow i ncl us i on of thi s pr ovi s i on i n t he fin al A g ree m en t. B B I fil ed a M em o ran d u m o f L aw o n Jan u ary 3 1 o p p o sin g th e D e f

e n d a n ts’ c ro ss -m o tio n to v a c a te th e d e f a u lt j udgm entand ar gui ng t hatt he C al i forni a court had per s onal ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h e D e f e n d a n ts

. O n A pr i l 5, 2006, t he D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey i s s ued an O pi ni on and O r der i n r es ponse to the p a rt ie s ’ m o tio n s . See B u d g e t B lin d s v . W h ite , N o. 05- m c- 388, 2 0 0 6 U

. S

. D ist

. L E X IS 1 7 2 0 7 , 2 0 0 6 W L 8 9 1 1 8 7 (D

. N

. J. A p r. 5, 2006)

. I ns t ead of

r es ol vi ng t he per s onal j ur i s di ct i on i s s ue, t he D istric t C o u rt v a c a ted th e d e f a u lt ju d g m e n t u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 6 0 (b) ( 6) , w hi ch pr ovi des : “O n m ot i on and just term s , t he courtm ayr el i eve a par t yori t s l egal r epr es ent at i ve fr om a fi nal j udgm ent , o r der , orpr ocee di ng for

. . . an yo th e r re a so n th a t ju stif ies re lief.” T o d e c id e th e R u le 60 (b) (6 ) i ssue, t he D i stri ctC ou rtem ploy ed a thr ee-partt est d e r i v e d f r o m H ar ad v. A etna C as ual t

y & Suret

y C o. , 839 F. 2d 979 ( 3d C i r . 1988) : “W hen det er m ining w hethert o vaca t e a defa ultj ud gm ent, a cou rt shou l d con si der the foll ow i ng fact ors: ( 1) w he t hert he def

endanthas a mer i t or i ous defe ns e; ( 2) w hether cul pabl e conduc tof the def endantl ed t o t he def

aul t ; and ( 3) w hether t he pl ai nt i ff w i l l be pr ej udi ced. ” B udget B l i nds , 2006 U

. S. D i s t

. L E X I S 17207, at*4 ( ci t i ng H ar ad , 8 3 9 F

. 2 d at 98 2 ). Fi r s t , t h e D ist r i ctC our tfound thatt he D efe ndant s had an “extr em el y ” m eri t ori ou s defen se, st at i ng : “T he fa ct s est abli sh12 t hatW hi t e ful l ycompl i ed w i t h herobl igati ons undert he s et t l e me n ta g r e e me n ta n d t h e r e f o r e t h e p r o v i s i o n [ i n t he A g re e m e n t] s ta y in g a ll lit ig a tio n is , m o s t lik e ly, s till i n e f f e c t.” 2 0 0 6 U

. S

. D ist

. L E X IS 1 7 2 0 7 , at *5

. S ec o n d , the D istri ct C o u rt concl uded thatthe cul pabi l i t yfac t or“ar guabl ybenef i t s ei t her par t y ” bec aus e W hi t e had “ m or e than a c ol or abl e ar gum entt hat t he di s t r i ctcour tl acke d per s onal j ur i s di ct i on” buti tw oul d have b e e n “ p ru d e n t” f

o r h e r to a p p e a r b e f

o re th e C a lifo rn ia c o u rt to m a k e th is a rg u m e n t. I d. a t * 5

– * 6 & n . 2

. Th i r d , t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt f o u n d th a t “ B B I w ill su f

f e r a b so lu telyn o p re

ju d ice sh o u ld t he C ou rtor dervaca tur . ” I d. at*7. W ei ghi ng t hes e thr ee fac t or s , t he D i s t r i ctC o u r tconcl uded thatvaca turw as a p p ro p ri a te

. I

d. a t * 7

– * 8

. E v en t hough t he br i efs of both par t i es had foc us ed on per s onal j ur i s di ct i on, t he N ew J er s eyD i s t ri ct C our tdi d not deci de t hi s i s s ue, expl ai ni ng i n a footnot e that“[t ] he C our tneed n o t p a ss o n w h e th e r th e C a lifo rn ia d istric t co u rt a c tu a lly pos s es sed p ersona l j ur i s di ct i on overW hi t e forpurpos es of a R u le 6 0 (b )(6 ) in q u iry . It i s e n o u g h to k n o w th a t W h ite p o sses sed m o re tha n a c o lorab le arg u m en t that the distr ictco u rt l acke d per s onal j ur i s di ct i on. ” I d. at * 6 n . 2

. T h e D istri ct C o u rt d id , h o w e v e r, “g ra n t B B I’s re a so n a b le le g a l f e e s a n d c o sts as s oci at ed w i t h obt ai ni ng t he def aul tj udgm entand r eg i s t er i ng t h e j u d g m e n ti n t h i s C o u r t , ” i n p a r tb e c a u s e “ a p ru d e n ta t t o r n e y” w oul d have r es ponded to B B I ’ s compl ai ntdes pi t e hi s orher bel i ef thatt he C ali forni a di s t r i ctcour tl acke d per s onal ju ri s d ic tio n . I

d. at *8. A ccor di ngl y , the D i s t r i ctC our tdi r ect ed B B I t o s ubm i t , w i t hi n 10 day s of the O r der , an af fi davi ts et t i ng for th t he det ai l s of the fe es and cos t s expende d.13 O n M ay5, 2006, B B I f i l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of

appea l of t he por t i on of the D ist ri ctC our t ’ s O r dert hatvaca t ed the C al i forni a def

aul tj udgm ent

. O n J une 29, 2006, t he N ew J er s ey D istric t C o u rt sta y e d B B I’s a p p lica tio n f o r f e e s a n d c o sts pe n d i n g r e s o l u t i o n o f

t h i s a p p e a l

. Th e Di s t r i c tCou r th ad j ur i s di ct i on over t he r egi s t r at i on and enfor cement of a fo rei gn j udgm entpur s uantt o 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1963 ( 2000) , and w e have j ur i s di ct i on overB B I ’ s appea l of a f i nal or derpursua n t t o 28 U

. S. C

. § 1291 ( 2000)

. T he partof the D i s t r i ctC o u r t ’ s O r der vac a t i n g t h e d e f

a u l t j u d g me n t i s “ f

i n a l ” wi t h i n t h e me a n i n g of § 1291, des pi t e the fa ctt hatt he amount of att or ney s ’ fee s re m a in s u n re s o lv e d

. See Fr angos v. D oer i ng E qui p. C or p. , 860 F. 2d 70, 72 ( 3d C i r . 1988) ( ci t i ng B udi ni ch v. B ecton D i cki ns on , 4 8 6 U .S . 1 9 6 , 1 9 9 (1 9 8 8 ))

. O n M ay17 , 20 06 , t he D efen dan t s fi l ed a n oti ce of cross a p p e a l o f

th e p a rt o f

th e O r d e r th a t aw a rd e d f e e s a n d c o sts to B B I

. A l t hough nei t herpar t yqu es t i oned the exi s t ence of appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s por t i on of t he O r der , w e not e that t he D i stri ctC ou rthas no tqu anti fi ed th e am ou nt of at t orney s’ fe es, a n d “[ i] t h as lon g b ee n the ru le i n this cir cu itthat this co u rt l acks jur i s di ct i on t o exami ne the mer i t s of an a t t or ney s ’ fee aw ar d w her e t he aw ar d has not been quant i fi ed. ” Fr angos , 860 F. 2d at72. W e w i l l vaca t e t he aw ar d of fees and cost s w i t hout co n side ri n g it s m erit s. T h e D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted th e a w ard underi t s “i nher ent pow er under R ul e 60( b) t o i m pos e t er m s and c o n d iti o n s u p o n th e o p e n in g o f a ju d g m e n t.” 2 0 0 6 U .S . D ist. L E X I S 17207, at*8 ( quot i ng Fel i ci ano v. R el i antTool i ng C o. , 691 F. 2d 653, 657 ( 3d C i r . 1982) )

. B yvaca t i ng t he O r der o p e n in g th e ju d g m e n t, w e v a c a te th e s e c o n d itio n s a s w e ll.O ur rev iew is pl enaryw hen w e r evi ew det er m i nat i ons 5
u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b )( 4 ). See Page v. Schw ei ker , 786 F. 2d 150, 152 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 6 ). 14 III

. F ed era l R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 5 5 (c) stat es th at a c o u rt

“ m a yse t as id e a d e f

a u lt j u d g m e n t u n d e r R u le 6 0 ( b ) .” R u le 60( b) l i s t s s i x r eas ons forw hi ch a “ cour tm ayr el i eve a par t yor i t s l egal r epr es ent at i ve fr om a fi nal j udgm ent , or der , or pr ocee di ng, ” i ncl udi ng t he cat ch- al l pr ovi s i on i n R ul e 60( b) ( 6) t hatal l ow s a courtt o r el i eve a par t yfr om a j udgm entfor“any o th e r r e a s o n th a t ju stif

ies re lief ” a sid e f ro m th e m o re sp e c if

ic ci r cums tanc es des cr i bed i n R ul es 60( b) ( 1) –( 5)

. W e r evi ew g ra n ts o r den i al s of rel i ef un der R ule 60(b), asi de from t ho se r ai s ed underR ul e 60( b) ( 4) , under an abuse of di s cr et i on 5 s ta n d a rd

. See Harris v. Ma rtin , 8 3 4 F

. 2 d 3 6 1 , 3 6 4 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 7 ).
T h e p o w e r o f

a c o u rt to in v o k e R u le 6 0 (b ) to v a c a te its o wn e a r l i e rj u d g me n ti s u n q u e s t i o n e d

. As we d i s c u s s b e l o w, how ever , i ti s uncl earw hether a cour thas t he pow ert o i nvoke R ul e 60( b) t o vaca t e a j udgm en t w hen the courti n w hi ch the j udgm enti s r egi s t er ed ( t he “r egi s t er i ng cour t ”) i s di ffe r entfr om the c o u rtthat en tered th e jud g m en t ( the “ ren d ering co u rt ”). N o th in g in th e tex t o f

R u le 5 5 (c ) o r R u le 6 0 (b ) su g g e sts th a t a r egi s t er i ng co u r tl acks t he pow ert o vaca t e the j udgm entof a di ffe r entr ender i ng cour t , butas w e di s cus s bel ow , s ever al c o u rt s h a v e s u g g e s te d o th e rw is e .15 W e dec l i ne t o es t abl i s h a cat egor i cal rul e s t at i ng t hat re g iste rin g c o u rts la c k th e p o w e r to u se R u le 6 0 (b )(6 ) to v a c a te t he j udgm ent s o f re nder i ng cour t s , butw e emphas i ze that reg ist ering co u rt s s h o u ld ex erc ise th is po w er o n lyu n d er v ery l i mi t e d c i r c u ms t a n c e s . E v e n wh e n a c o u r t i s c o n s i d e r i n g i t s o wn ju d g m e n t, “ e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e s” m u st b e p re se n t to ju stif y th e u se o f th e R u le 6 0 (b )(6 ) ca tch -a ll p ro v isio n to v a c a te th e ju d g m e n t. See, e. g. , G onz al ez v. C rosby , 545 U

. S. 524, 535–36 ( 2005) ( ci t i ng Ac ke r man n v
. Uni t e d S t a t es , 34 0 U. S. 1 9 3 , 1 9 9 (1 9 5 0 )). W h e n a c o u rt is c o n sid e rin g w h e th e r to vacate anothe r c o urt ’s j ud gm ent unde r R ule 60(b)( 6), t hese ci r cu ms t a n c e s mus tb e even mor e “e xt r aor di nary ” bec aus e of the add i t i o n a l int eres ti n co m i t yam on g the federal dis t ri ctcou rt s. W e nee d not deci de exact l y how “extr aor di nary ” a c i r cumst ance m us tbe t o j us t i fyt he vac aturof anothercour t ’ s j udgm ent

. T he ci r cumst ance s of the i ns t antcas e w ou ld n o teven be e x tra o r d in a rye n o u g h to ju stif ya c o u rt’s d e c isio n to v a c a te its o w n ju d g m e n t. I t f

o llo w s , a for tiori , t hatt heyar e not extr aor d i naryenough t o j us t i fyvaca t i ng t he j udgm entof another c o u rt

. A.
Sever al ci r cui t s have e i t herhel d, ors t at ed i n di ct a, t hat t he pow erof a f

eder al di s t r i ctcour tt o s etas i de anotherdi s t r i ct c o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t is lim ite d

. I n In d ia n He a d

N a tio n a l B a n k

v . B ru n e lle , 689 F. 2d 245 (1st C ir

. 1 9 8 2 ), th e F ir st C ir cu ith eld th at “a reg istrati o n co u rt errs in e n tert ainin g a R u le 60 (b) m o ti o n th a t a ll eg es n eit h er a j udgm entvoi d forl ack of per s onal j ur i s di ct i on norgr ounds t hatT h e F ir st C ir cui tpoi nt ed t o t he fol l ow i ng l anguage i n t he 6 advi s or ycomm i t t ee not es t o t he 1946 amendm entt hatcr eat ed R u le 60 (b):
T w o typ e s o f p ro c e d u re to o b tain re lief f ro m ju d g m e n ts a r e s p e c i f

i e d i n t h e ru l e s a s i ti s p r o p o s e d t o a me n d t h e m. O ne pr ocedur e i s bym ot i on i n t he courtand i n t he ac t i on i n w hi ch the j udg m en t w as r ender ed. T he other p ro c e d u re is b ya n e w o r in d e p e n d e n t ac tio n to o b tain r el i ef f r om a j udgm ent , w hi ch act i on m ay or m aynotbe b e g u n in th e c o u rt w h ic h re n d e re d th e ju d g m e n t. 16 w oul d s uppor t an i ndepende ntequi t abl e ac t i on. ” I d. at251–52. I n I ndi an Head , t he D i s t r i ct C o u rtfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof P e n n sy lv a n ia r e n d e re d a d e f a u lt j u d g m e n t ag a in st the d efen dan t, C o n p ro c o C o rp o ra tio n . I d. at 247. T he pl ai nt i ff r egi s t er ed the j udgm ent i n t he D i s t r i ct C our t for t he D i s t r ict o f N ew H a m p sh ir e p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 6 3 , an d a ttem p ted to a tta c h C o n p ro c o ’s N e w H a m p s h ir e ’s b a n k a c c o u n t. I d. I ns t ead of di r ect l yappea l i ng t he j udgm entorm ovi ng in t he r ender i ng cour tt o s eti tas i de, C onpr oco moved i n t he D ist ri ctof N ew H ampsh i r e t o s e t a s i d e t h e j u d g me n t u n d e r Rul e 6 0 ( b ) ( 1 ) and R u le 6 0 (b )(6 ), cla im in g th a t “th e d e f a u lt j u d g m e n t w a s d u e to i nadvert ence and negl ect

. ” I d. at 2 4 7

– 4 8

. T h e N ew H am p sh ir e di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed C onpr oco’ s m ot i on aft erfi ndi ng t hat C onpr oco had a val i d defe ns e and that t he defa ul t j udgm entw as n o t t h e f a u l t o f C o n p ro c o o r i ts c o u n s e l. I d. at24 8. T he F i rs t C i rcui tr ever s ed, expl ai ni ng t hat“ther e ar e i ndi cat i ons t hatt he dr aft er s of the R u le i nt ended t o r es t r i ctm ot i on pr act i ce unde r 60( b) t o t he courtw hi ch r ender ed j udgm ent , ” and that 6689 F. 2d at248 ( ci t i ng F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 60 advi s or ycomm it te e n o te)

. T h e F irst C irc u it ex p lain e d th a t th e “ o th e r p ro c e d u re ” is a re fe ren ce to lan g u a g e that n o w ap p ea rs un d er R u le 60 (d): “Th i s ru l e d o e s n o t l i mi t a c o u r t ’ s p o wer t o : ( 1 ) e n t e r t ai n an i ndepende ntact i on t o r el i eve a par t y fr om a j udgm ent , or der , or pr ocee di ng; (2) g rantr el i ef unde r28 U

. S. C

. § 1655 t o a defe ndant w ho w as not per s onal l y not i fi ed of the ac t i on; or( 3) s etas i de a j udgm entforfr aud on the cour t

. ” 689 F. 2d at248–49 & n. 7. T hes e ac ti o n s had bee n avai l abl e i n bot h t he r ender i ng c o u rt a n d o th e r c o u rt s e v e n b e f o re th e R u le ’s e n a c t m e n t. I d. A ccor di ng t o t he Fi r st C ir cui t , t he fi r s tof the tw o “types of pr ocedur e” i s a r efe r ence t o R ul e 60( b) m ot i on pr act i ce, and the c o m m itt e e ’s la n g u a g e re f lec ts its u n d e rsta n d in g th a t th is p ro c e d u re w o u ld b e lim ite d to th e re n d e ri n g c o u rt

. See i d. 17 defe r ence t o t he r ender i ng cour tpr om ot es comi t yamong feder al cour t s , eff

i ci entj udi ci al admi ni s t r at i on ( i n l i ght of the r ender i ng cour t ’ s fami l i ar i t yw i t h t he i s s ues ) , and s i m pl i fi ed col l ect i on of jud g m en ts

. I

d. T h e F ir st C ir cu itsaid that a re g ist ering co u rt m ayg ran t R u le 60 (b) reli ef fro m a d iff

e re n t r en d ering co u rt ’s j udgm enti n onl y t w o s i tuat i ons : fi r s t , w hen the r eques tforr el i ef i s bas ed on gr ounds t hatcoul d al s o s uppor tan i ndepende nt e q u ita b le a c tio n , i d. at249–50 & n. 8 , an d second, w hen a re q u e st f o r re lief f ro m a d e f

a u lt j u d g m e n t is m a d e u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b )( 4 ), i d. a t 2 5 0

– 5 1

. C o n p ro c o ’s r e q u e st f o r re lief d id n o t f it i nt o t hes e ca t egor i es , s o t he Fi r s tC i r cui tr ever s ed the j udgm ent o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt g ra n tin g th e re lie f

. I d. a t 2 5 2

. T he Seventh C i r cui tw entfur t heri n B oar d of Trus t ees v. E l i t e Erec t ors , I

nc. , 212 F. 3d 1031 ( 7t h C i r . 2000) , concl udi ngDes p i t e t h i s c o n c l u s i o n , t h e Se v e n t h Ci r c u i t di d not 7 expl i ci t l yoverrul e i t s ear l i erdeci s i on i n I n r e Joi ntE as t er n & Souther n D is tr i ct

A s bes t os Li t iga t i on , 2 2 F

. 3 d 7 5 5 (7th C ir

. 1994) , w hi ch s ai d: “W e not e t hat t he author i t yof the r egi s t r at i on cour tto en ter t ai n a mot i on underR ul e 60( b) ( 4) appea r s t o be w el l es t abl i s hed. ” I

d. a t 7 6 2 n .1 5

.

18 t h at a rende r i ng di s t r i ctcour tm aynot“modi fyorannul ” the ju d g m e n t o f

a n o th e r d istric t c o u rt u n d e r a n yp ro v isio n o f R u le 6 0 (b ), i n c lu d i n g R u le 6 0 (b )( 4 ). I d. a t 1 0 3 4

. E l i t e E rect ors i nvol ved a de faul tj udgm entr ender ed in t he D i s t r i ctC our tfor th e E a ste rn D istric t o f V irg in ia th a t th e p la in tiff s s o u g h t to enfor ce i n t he D i s t r i ct C our t for t he Sout hern D i s t r i ctof I ndi ana. I d. at 10 3 3

. T h e de fe n d an ts m o v ed in th e In d iana d istri ct co u rt t o annul t he j udgm entunderR ul e 60( b) (4) o n the gr ound t hat th e re n d e ri n g c o u rt la c k e d p e rs o n a l ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r th e m . I d. T h e S e v e n t h C i r c u i t h e l d t h a t a n y r e q u e s tt o a n n u l o rm o d i f y a j udgm entunderR ul e 60( b) “mustbe pr es ent ed t o t he r ender i ng cour t. ” I

d. Itproceed ed to exp l ai n thatt he p art i es agai nst w hom t he V i r gi ni a di s t r i ct cour t ent er ed j udgm ent“ar e ent i t l ed t o r es i s tenfor cementi n I ndi ana i f, butonl yi f, t he U ni t ed St at es D i str i ctC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof V i r gi ni a l acke d per s onal o rs ubj ect

- m at t erj ur i s di ct i on. ” Id

. at1035. B utt he Seventh C i r cui ti ndi cat ed that“r es i sti ng enfor cement ” of the ju d g m e n t in In d ian a w a s n o t th e sa m e a s “ f o rm a llya n n u lli n g it u n d e r R u l e 6 0 (b )( 4 ).” I d. at1034. T he di ffe r ence i s t hat 7 a n n u lli n g th e ju d g m e n t w o u ld d e p riv e it o f its e f f e c t in a ll f o ru m s, in c lu d in g th e re n d e rin g c o u rt, w h e re a s s u c c e ss f u lly re sis tin g th e ju d g m e n t’s e n f o rc e m e n t w o u ld d e p riv e it o f its e f f e c t o n ly in th e In d ia n a d is tr ic t c o u rt

. I d.19 S e v e ra l o th e r c irc u its h a v e su g g e ste d in d ic ta th a t R u le 60( b) m ot i ons s houl d g e n e ra lly be m ade be for e the r ender i ng co u rt , b u t th eyh av e n o t a d o p ted a ri g id req u ir em en t. In Co v i n g t o n I

n d u s tr i e s , I

n c
. v
. R e s i n t ex A

. G. , 629 F. 2d 730 ( 2d C ir. 1 9 8 0 ), th e S e c o n d C irc u it h e ld th a t a re g iste rin g c o u rt c o u ld i nvoke R ul e 60( b) ( 4) t o vaca t e a r ender i ng cour t ’ s j udgm entfor lac k o f ju risd ictio n , b u t itsu g g e ste d th a t re g is te r in g c o u rts sh o u ld b e m o re re stra in e d w h e n a p p ly in g o th e r se c tio n s o f R u le 6 0 (b ). See 629 F. 2d at733 ( “I n t he us ual cas e, the co ur tof r endi t ion w il l be m or e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ct s t han the courtof re g istra tio n a n d p e rh a p s m o re c o n v e rsa n t w ith th e a p p lica b le l aw . ”)

. I n Mor r is ex r el

. R ectorv. P et ers on , 8 7 1 F .2 d 9 4 8 (1 0 th C i r . 1989) , t he Tent h C i r cui tci t ed I ndi an Head for“the gene r al rul e th at a reg istr at i on cour t

. . . us ual l ydefe r s on R ul e 60( b) m ot i ons t o t he courtr ende r i ng t he j udgm ent

. . . , ” butt hen appl i ed I ndi an Head ’s excep t i on for R ule 60(b)( 4) m oti on s. P et ers on , 8 71 F. 2d at950–51 & n. 2 ( ci t i ng I ndi an H ead , 689 F. 2d at249, 251–52)

. I n H ar perMacl eod Sol i ci t ors v. Keat y & Ke a ty , 260 F. 3d 389 ( 5t h C i r . 2001) , t he F i fth C i r cui t hel d t hat a r egi steri n g cour tm ayi nvoke R ul e 60( b) ( 4) t o vaca t e a re n d e rin g c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t b u t ex p re ss e d d o u b t in d icta th a t a re g iste rin g c o u rt c o u ld d o th e sa m e w ith o th e r se c tio n s o f R u le 6 0 (b ). S e e i d. at395 ( “j udi ci al eff i ci encyand comi t yamong di s t r i ctcour t s oft en couns el a r egi s t er i ng cour t t o defe rrul i ng on R u le 60 (b) m o ti o n s in f av o r of the re n d ering co u rt

. . . . ”). I n F D ICv. A ar oni an , 9 3 F .3 d 6 3 6 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ), th e N in th C irc u it sa id th a t “[ r]e g iste rin g c o u rts g e n e ra llyp re f e r liti g a n ts to b ri n g m o tio n s f

o r p o s tju d g m e n t r e lie f

in th e re n d e ri n g c o u rt ,” b u t itc o n c lu d e d th a t itw a s p ro p e r f o r a re g iste rin g c o u rt to ent er t ai n a cha l l enge t o a r ender i n g co u rt ’ s j udgm enton t he g rou n d that the ju d g m en t w as u n co n sti tuti o n al an d there fo reI n an ea r l i erdeci s i on, t he N inth C i r cui ti ndi cat ed thatat 8 l eastsom e R ule 60(b) m oti on s m ust be brought i n t he r ender i ng cour t

. I n F i rs tB eve r ages , I nc. v. R oya l Crow n C ol a C o. , 612 F. 2d 1164 ( 9t h C i r . 1 980) , t he N i nt h C i r cui ts ai d: “The pr oper appr oach t o see k ing r el i ef f r om j udgm entbeca us e of a change in th e f a c tu a l circ u m sta n c e s s u r r o u n d in g th is c a se w o u ld b e to m ake a R ul e 60( b) m ot i on ora mot i o n t o r eopen t o hear add i t i on al proof

. S uch m oti on s m ustb e d irect ed in t he fir st i ns t ance t o t he di s t r i ct co ur t

. ” I d. a t 1 1 7 2

. A ar oni an does not ci t e F i rs tB eve r ages . W e d o n o tc o n s i d e ri n t h i s o p i n i o n whe t h e ra r egi s t er i ng 9 cour teverhas t he pow ert o s etasi d e jud g m ent s underR ul es 6 0 (b )( 1 ), ( 2 ), ( 3 ), o r ( 5 ). 20 voi d. I d. at649. 8
W e ar e per s uaded byt he r eas oni ng of t he Fi r s t , Second, Fi fth, Seventh, N i nt h, and Tent h C i r cui t s t o t he ext entt hatt hey concl u d e t h a tRul e 6 0 ( b ) mot i o n s ( o t h e rt h a n mot i o n s u n d er R u le 6 0 (b )(4 )) sh o u ld g e n e ra lly b e ra ise d in th e re n d e rin g c o u rt. N onethel es s , w e dec l i ne t o hol d t hat r egi s t er i ng cour t s l ack the pow eri n al l s i tuat i ons t o i nvoke R ul e 6 0 (b)( 6) t o s etas i de ju d g m e n ts. R u le 6 0 (b )(6 ) e x ists s o th a t co u rt s m a y“ v a c a te

9 j ud gmen t s w he ne ve rs uc h a c t i on i s a pp r op r i a t e t o a c c ompl i sh j us t i ce, ” K l appr ot t v. U ni t ed Stat es , 3 3 5 U

. S

. 6 0 1 , 6 1 4 (19 4 9 ), i n s i tuat i o n s tha tar e notaddr es s ed byt he otherfi ve cl aus es of R ul e 60( b)

. T he dr aft er s of R ul e 60( b) ( 6) appar ent l yr ecogni zed t hata ca t ch- al l pr ovi s i on w oul d be nec es s ary , s i nce i tw oul d be i m pos s i bl e t o s peci fyal l of t he s cena r i os i n w hi ch j us t i ce mi ghtW e also do n o t think that the l an g u ag e of th e a d v isory 10 comm i t t ee, as di s cus s ed i n I ndi an Head , 689 F. 2d at248, req u ir es su ch a rule. T h e w o rds o f th e a d v isoryco m m ittee a re not as i mpo r t a n ta s t h e t e x to f t h e Rul e , whi c h i mpo s e s no li m it ati o n s o n a c o u rt ’s ab il ityto se t asi d e a n o ther c o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t. M o re o v e r, w e n o te th a t ev e n th o u g h th e F irst C irc u it aff or ded w ei ght t o t he advi s or y comm i t t ee’ s l anguage , i tdi d not fol l ow i tl i t er al l y , s i nce I ndi an Head ac k n o w ledg ed that a c o u rt m ayu se R u le 60 (b)(4 ) t o v ac ate the jud g m en t o f a n o ther c o u rt th a t la c k e d p e rs o n a l ju ri s d ic tio n . See i d. at250–51. W hen the j udgm enti s nota def aul tj udgm ent , an addi t i onal 11 i nt er e s te x i s t s : e f

f i c i e n tj u d i c i a l a d mi n i s t r a t i o n r e s u l t i n g f r om th e re n d e ri n g c o u r t ’ s g re a te r f a m ilia ri ty w ith th e f

a c ts

. See I ndi an H ead , 6 8 9 F .2 d a t 2 4 8 . W ith a d e f a u lt j u d g m e n t, how ever , t he r ender i ng cour ti s unl i kel yt o have a nygr eat er k n o w le d g e o f

th e f a c ts th a n th e re g is te ri n g c o u rt

. See O n Trac k Trans p. v. Lakesi d e W

ar ehous e & Truc ki ng , 245 F. R

. D

. 213, 2 2 1 (E .D . P a . 2 0 0 7 ). 21 r eq u ir e vac aturof a j udgm ent

. G i ven the ca t ch- al l natur e of R u le 6 0 (b )(6 ), w e d o n o t th in k th a t itw o u ld b e w ise to a d o p t a rul e thatcat egor i cal l yforbids di s t r i ctcour t s fr om vaca t i ng t he j udgm ent s of ot her di s t r i ct cour t s under t hi s pr ovi s i on. 10 A lth o u g h th e in ter e st in c o m ity w ill u su a lly m a k e it 11 inad v isab le fo r a reg ist ering co u rt to vac ate a ren d ering co u rt ’s j udgm ent , w e ca nnotrul e outt he pos s ibil it y t hats om e s etof fa ct s w i l l caus e the i nj us t i ce of enfor ci ng a r ender i ng court ’s j udgm ent t o be s o gr eat as t o out w ei gh t he damage thats et t i ngA n ysu ch set o f f ac ts w o u ld p rob ab lyb e su ff ici en t t o fo rm 12 t he bas i s of an “ i ndepende ntequi tabl e ac t i on” w i t hi n t he m e a n in g o f

th e e x c e p tio n th a t th e F irst C irc u it d e sc rib e d in I ndi an H ead

. See 689 F. 2d at249 & n. 8. W e nee d notdeci de her e w hetheri t i s pos s i bl e for a cour t t o be confr ont ed w i t h a s et of fa ct s t hat coul d not s uppor t an i ndepende nt equi t abl e ac t i on but coul d nonethel es s j us t i fyvaca t i ng anothercour t ' s j udgm ent u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b )( 6 ). O ur ci rcui tu se s th e term s “ext raor dinar yci rcum st ances” 13 and “e xcept i onal ci r cumst ance s ” i nt er change abl yw h en d is c u s s in g R u le 6 0 (b )( 6 ). See, e. g. , L asky v. C on t i nen t al Prod s. C or p. , 804 F. 2d 250, 252 ( 3d C i r . 1986) ( us i ng bot h t er m s i n t he sa m e p a ra g ra p h ); B ou gh ner v. Sec’y of H ealth, E du c. & W

el f are , 572 F. 2d 976, 978 (3d C ir

. 1978) ( concl udi ng t hat“the ci r cumst ance s her e a r e s u f f i c i e n t l y exce pt i onal and 22 as i de the j udgm entw oul d i nfl i ctupon comi ty

. W e nee d not 12 d e c id e h e re w h a t f

a c ts w o u ld b e su f

f icie n t, ho w e v e r, b e c a u se it is cle a r th a t th e f

a c ts of th e in sta n t c a se f a ll f a r sh o rt o f

w h a t is nece s s ary t o j us t i fyvaca turof a r ender i ng cour t ’ s j udgm ent u n d er R u le 60 (b)(6 ).
B.
A lth o u g h th e tex t o f

R u le 6 0 (b )(6 ) sta tes sim p lyth a t a cour tm aygr antr el i ef f r om a fi nal j udgm entfor“anyothe r r eas on t hatj us t i fi es r el i ef, ” court s have a dded a r equi r ement t hat a part ys eeki ng R ul e 60( b) ( 6) r el i ef m us tdemonst r at e the exi s t ence of “extr aor di nary ci r cumst ance s ” t hat just i fy 13e x tra o rd in a ryso a s to m a n d a te r e lief p u rsu a n t to R u le 6 0 (b )( 6 ) . . . .” ). 23 re o p e n in g th e ju d g m e n t. See, e. g. , C r os by , 545 U

. S. at535–36 ( ci t i ng A cke r m ann , 3 4 0 U .S . at 1 9 9 ); C ol t ec I ndus

. v. H

obgood , 280 F. 3d 262, 273 ( 3d C i r . 2002) (qu o t i ng I n r e Fi ne Paper A nt i tr us tLi t ig. , 8 4 0 F .2 d 1 8 8 , 1 9 4 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 8 )). T h is r equi r ement exi sts in or dert o bal ance t he br oad l anguage of R ul e 60( b) ( 6) , w hi ch al l ow s cour t s t o s etas i de j udgm ent s for “any ” r eas on j us t i fy i ng r el i ef, w i t h t he i nt er es t i n t he fi nal i t yof ju d g m e n ts

. See I

n r e Fi ne Paper Ant i tr us tLi t ig. , 8 4 0 F

. 2 d at 1 9 4

– 9 5 ; Mayber r

y v. Mar oney , 5 5 8 F

. 2 d 1 1 5 9 , 1 1 6 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 7 7 ). A s w e e x p lai n ed ab o v e, w h en a re g ist ering co u rt cons i ders the j udgm entof a di f f er ent di s t r i ctcour t , t he us e of R ul e 60( b) ( 6) t o vaca t e anothercour t ’ s j udgm enti m pl i cat es an a d d iti o n a l in ter e st in c o m ity , e v e n if th e ju d g m e n t w a s a d e f a u lt ju d g m e n t. If th e c irc u m sta n c e s o f a c a se a re n o t su f

f icie n tly “extr aor di nary ” t o out w ei gh t he i nt er es ti n t he fi nal i t yof j udgme n t s , t h e n i tf

o l l o ws t h a tt h e c i r c u ms t a n c e s c a n n ot o u tw e ig h th e in te r e s t in f in a lityc o m b in e d w ith th e in ter e st in c o m ity.
W e ha v e ex p lai n ed that a sho w ing o f e x tr ao rdin ary circu m s t ance s i nvol ves a s how i ng t hatw i t houtr el i ef f r om t he ju d g m e n t, “ a n ‘e x tr e m e ’ a n d ‘u n e x p e c te d ’ h a rd s h ip w ill r e s u lt.” Mayb erry , 558 F. 2d at 1163. T hi s “har ds hi p” re qui r ement m ay s om et i m es be s at i s fi ed w hen the j udgm ent“pr ecl uded an adj udi cat i on on t he mer i t s . ” B oughnerv. Sec’ y of Heal th, E duc. & W el f are , 5 7 2 F

. 2 d 9 7 6 , 9 7 8 (3d C ir

. 1 9 7 8 ). B u t extrao rdin ary c i r c u ms t a n c e s r a r e l ye x i s twh e n a p a r t ys e e k s r e l i e f f r o m aI n B oughner , w e i nvok ed R u le 6 0 (b) ( 6) t o r el i eve 14 appel l ant s of an a dver s e j udgm ent r es ul t i ng fr om t he i nt ent i onal act s of t hei r at t or ney . 572 F. 2d at 979. B utw e onl ydi d s o aft er f in d in g th a t th e a tto rn e y ’s “ e g re g io u s c o n d u c t a m o u n ted to not hi ng s hor tof l eavi ng hi s cl i ent s unr epr es ent ed. ” I d. at977. G i ven thi s fac tual s et t i ng, w e hel d t hat“appe l l ant s ar e notbound by t he act s of t hei r at t or ney for t he purpos es of t he rul e. ” I d. at 978. 24 j u d g m e n tt hat r esul t ed from t he p arty ’s deli berat e cho i ces. 14 S e e , e
. g. , C ol t ec , 280 F. 3d at274 ( “[C]ourt s have notl ooked favor abl yon t he entr eat i es of part i es t ry i ng t o es cape t he cons equenc es of thei row n ‘co u n s el ed and know l edgea bl e’ d e c is io n s.” ); s e e a l

s o A cke r m ann , 340 U

. S. at198–99 ( pet i t i oner coul d nots how the ex i s t ence of extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s w hen he v olunt ari l ycho se not t o ap peal due to the m od est ex p en ses th at an ap p ea l w o u ld req u ir e).
I n t he i ns t antcas e, t he N ew J er s eyD i s t r i ctC our tdi d not m e n tio n th e “ e x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e s” re q u ire m e n t in its opi ni on. W e acknow l edge t hatourdeci s i on i n H ar ad m ayhave contr i but ed t o thi s err orbys endi ng confus i ng s i gnal s t o t he D istric t C o u rt re g a r d in g th e sta n d a rd s f o r v a c a tin g a d e f

a u lt j udgm ent

. I n Har ad , w e r ever s ed the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on nott o vaca t e i t s ow n ear l i er defa ul tj udgm ent

. 839 F. 2d at985. W e s t at ed that“the dec i s i on t o vaca t e a de faul tj udgm enti s l eft to the so u n d d iscre ti o n o f th e tri al co u rt , ” b u t th at “[ i] n exer ci sing thi s di s cr et i on . . . t he courtm us tcons i derw hether vaca t i ng t he def

aul tj udgm entw i ll vi s i tpr ej udi ce on the pl ai nt i ff, w hether t he defenda nt has a m er i t or i ous defe ns e, and25 w h e th e r th e d e f

a u lt w a s th e re su lt o f

th e d e f e n d a n t’s c u lp a b le conduct

. ” I

d. a t 9 8 2

. H

ar ad m akes no refer ence to anycl ause in R u le 60 (b), no r do es itco n side r w h ethe r “e x tr ao rdin ary c ir c u m s ta n c e s ” w e re p re s e n t. T h u s , H ar ad m ay h av e cr eat ed the erro n eo u s im p ression that an ex ce p ti o n to the “e x tr ao rdin ary c irc u m sta n c e s ” r e q u ire m e n t ex ists w h e n a d istric t co u rt is c o n sid e rin g w h e th e r to v a c a te a d e f a u lt j u d g m e n t, as o p p o se d to a ju d g m e n t o n th e m e ri ts

. A cl oser l oo k a t Ha radr evea l s t hati t s t es tw as not in te n d e d to a p p ly to R u le 6 0 (b )( 6 ). H ar ad i nvol ved a compl ai nt fi l ed by an at t or ney( C har l es H ar ad) and one of hi s i ns ur ance compani es ( H om e) , agai ns tanotherof hi s i ns ur ance compani es (A e tn a ), se e k in g a d e c lar a to ryju d g m e n t th a t A e tn a h a d a d u ty t o defe nd and i ndemni fyH ar ad. 839 F. 2d at 981. O n D ece m ber 2 3 , 1 9 8 6 , H a ra d a n d H o m e se rv e d th e c o m p lain t o n A e tn a a t it s H ar t for d offi ce r athert h an the Phi l adel phi a off i ce w i t h w hi ch th e y h a d n e g o tia te d p re v io u s ly. I d. T he H ar t for d offi ce forw ar ded the compl ai ntt o t he Phi l adel phi a off i ce, and A etna en tered an ap p ea ran ce w ith the D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e E a stern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a on J anuary9, 1987, t he s ame dayt hat H ar ad a n d Home f

i l e d a r e q u e s tf

o ra d e f a u l tj u d g me n t

. The d istri ct co u rtd o ck eted the d ef au lt jud g m en t req u est o n Jan u ary 12 and t he entr y of appea r ance on J anuary 14, and t hen gr ant ed th e re q u e s t f

o r d e f a u lt ju d g m e n t o n J a n u a ry 1 4

. I d. A etna m oved t o vaca t e t he defaul t j udgm ent , and the part i es s t i pul at ed t hatt he s ol e i s s ue t o be addr es s ed o n t he mot i on w as w hether A et na h a d e stabl i shed a m eri t ori ou s defen se t o the pl ai nti ffs’ a c tio n . I d. T h e d istric t c o u rt th e n d e c lin e d to v a c a te th e d e f a u lt j udgm ent , butw e r ever s ed, concl udi ng t hatA etna had a m e ri to r io u s d e f

e n s e . I d. at985. A l t hough nei t hert he di s t r i ct$55, 518. 05 i n U

. S. C ur r ency c ited th re e c a s e s a s its 15 authori t yfor t his t est

. 72 8 F

. 2 d a t 1 95

. F i rs t , i tci t es G r os s v. 26 c o u rt ’s o p in io n , s ee H

ar ad v. A etna C as
. & Sur

. C o. , N o. 86- cv7266, 1987 W L 12290 ( E

. D

. Pa. J une 9, 1987) , norouropi ni on c i t e d a n yF e d e r a l Ru l e o f Ci v i l Pr o c e d u r e , we s e e a tl e a s tt wo r eas ons forcons t rui ng H ar ad a s a g ra n t o f

re lief u n d e r R u le 60( b) ( 1) , w hi ch al l ow s r el ief from a j udgm enton t he bas i s of “mi s t ake, i nadvert ence , s urpr i s e, orexcus abl e negl ect , ” ra t her t han R ul e 60( b) ( 6)

. Fi r s t, the fac t s of the ca s e, w i t h t he c o m p lain t se n t to th e w ro n g o f f ice a n d th e a p p a re n t d e lay i n docket i ng t he ent r y of appear ance , s ugges t t hatt hi s w as a mat t er o f “ m is ta k e , in a d v e rt e n c e , s u rp ri s e , o r e x c u s a b le n e g le c t.” S e c o n d , H

ar ad o b t a i n s i t s t h r e e - p a r tt e s td i r e c t l yf r o m U ni t ed St at es v. $ 5 5 , 5 1 8

. 05 i n U

. S. C ur r ency , 7 2 8 F

. 2 d 1 9 2 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 4 ), a c a s e th a t ad d re s s e s R u le 6 0 (b )( 1 ). See H ar ad , 839 F. 2d at982 ( ci t i ng $55, 518. 05 i n U

. S. C ur r ency , 7 2 8 F

. 2 d at 19 5 ). In $55, 518. 05 i n U

. S. C ur r ency , w e sa id : W e r equ ir e the di s t r i ctcour tt o cons i dert he f o llo w in g f

a c to rs in e x e rc isin g its d isc re tio n in g ra n tin g o r d e n y in g a m o tio n to se t as id e a d e f a u lt u nderR ul e 55( c) ora d e f a u l tj u d g men tu n d er R ul e 60( b) ( 1) : ( 1) w hethert he pl ai n ti ff w i l l be prej ud i ced; ( 2) w hethert he d e f e n d ant has a m er i t or i ous defe ns e; ( 3) w hethert he def aul tw as th e re su lt o f

th e d e f e n d a n t’s c u lp a b le c o n d u c t. $55, 518. 05 i n U

. S. C ur r ency , 7 2 8 F .2 d a t 1 9 5 (e m p h a sis added)

. A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude t hat t he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed

15S ter eo C om ponent Sys t em s , I

nc. , 700 F. 2d 120 ( 3d C i r . 198 3 ), a c a s e a p p lyin g R u le 6 0 (b )( 1 ). See 700 F. 2d at 121

– 2 2 & n . 1. S econ d, i tci t es Fel i ci ano v. R el i antTool i ng C o. , 691 F. 2d 653 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 2 ). Fel i ci ano appl i es R ul e 60( b) as a w hol e and e x p re ss lyd e c lin e s to c h o o se b e tw e e n R u le 6 0 (b )(1 ) a n d R u le 6 0 (b )( 6 ) a s its b a s is f

o r r e lie f

. See Fel i ci ano , 691 F. 2d at656. A l t hough Fel i ci ano su g g e sts th a t th e th re e -p a rt tes t m ig h t ap p ly to R u le 60( b) ( 6) , i tdoes notm ake thi s a partof i t s hol di ng. T h u s, w e d o n o t th in k th a t Fel i ci ano s t ands fort he pr opos i t i on t hatt he thr ee- par tt es ti s s uffi ci entt o guide a R u l e 60( b) ( 6) in q u ir y . T h ir d , $55, 518. 05 i n U

. S. C ur r ency ci t es Far nes e v. B agnas co , 6 8 7 F .2 d 7 6 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 2 ). Farnese i s conce r ned w i t h w hethert o s etas i de an “ entr yof def aul t ” as o p p o sed t o a “de fa u ltj udgm ent

. ” See Farne s e v. B agnas co , 687 F. 2d at 763–64 ( ci t i ng F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 55( c) ( s t at i ng t hata courtm ays et asid e a n en tryo f d ef

au lt“f o r go o d ca u se” )). 27 b y r e l y i n g s o l e l y o n t h e t h r e e f a c t o r s l i s t e d i n Ha r ad

t o gr ant reli ef u n d er R u le 60 (b)(6 ).
A p p e llee s a ss e rt th a t E m cas co I ns ur ance Co. v. Sam br i ck , 8 3 4 F .2 d 7 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 7 ), p ro v id e s th e a p p ro p ria te fa ctors f o r d ec iding w h ethe r to set asid e a d ef au ltjud g m en t. In E m cas co , w e a p p lied th e s a m e th re e f a c to rs th a t w e u se d in Ha r ad , p l u s a f

o u r t h

— “ t h e e f

f e c t i v e n e s s o f

a l t e r n a t i ve s a n c t i ons . ” I

d. a t 7 3

. E m cas co d o e s n o t cite R u le 6 0 (b ) in its r e v ie w o f

th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n n o t to v a c a te a d e f a u lt j udgm ent

. A s w i t h Harad , how ever , w e cons t rue E m cas co as des cr i bi ng a s t and ard forvaca t i ng a def aul tj udgm entunder R u le 6 0 (b )(1 ), n o t R u le 6 0 (b )(6 ). F irst, w e th in k th a t th e d e f a u ltE m cas co i nvolved a su it byan i ns ur ance company 16 (E M C A SC O ) agai ns t an i ns ur ed ( L oui s Sam br i ck) for a decl ar at or yj ud g m en t st at i ng t hatt he i ns ur ance pol i cydi d not coverper s onal i nj ur i es t hat Sam br i ck had a l l egedl yi nfl i ct ed on t w o ot herpeopl e. 834 F. 2d at 72. E M C A SC O s er ved Sambri ck w i t h i t s compl ai nton D ece m ber2, 1986, butSam br i ck, w ho w as n o t re p re s e n te d b y c o u n s e l, d id n o t f ile a tim e ly a n s w e r. I

d. at 7 2

– 7 3 . O n D e c e m b e r 3 1 , E M C A S C O s e rv e d th e stillu n re p re se n ted S a m b ric k w ith a n a f f id a v it req u e stin g d e f

a u lt ju d g m e n t. I

d. at73. A ft erSam b ri ck r et ai ned couns el , t he di s t r i ct cour thel d a t el ephone c onfer ence w i t h E M C A SC O on J anuary14, 1987, butnei t herSam bri ck norhi s couns el p a rt ic ip a te d in it, a p p a re n tly b e c a u s e th e y w e re n o t n o tif ie d

. I d. D u rin g th e tele p h o n e c o n f e re n c e , the d istric t co u rt to ld E M C A S C O t hat i tw ou l d en t er a def a u ltj ud gm ent unl ess S a m b ri c k f

ile d a n a n s w e r b y J a n u a ry 1 6

. I d. S a m b ric k a n d h is couns el w er e nott ol d of t hi s arr angement , but i ns t ead w er e l ed to u n d e rsta n d th a t th e y c o u ld a v o id a d e f a u lt j u d g m e n t if S am b ri ck ’s co u n sel en tered an ap p ea ran ce , w h ic h S am b ri ck ’s c o u n s e l d id o n J a n u a ry 1 5

. I d. O n Jan u ary1 6 , the d istri ct co u rt e n te re d a d e f

a u lt ju d g m e n t a g a in s t S a m b ri c k

. I d. T h e d is t r i ct cour ts ubs equent l y r ej ect ed Sam br i ck’ s m ot i on t o s etas i de the d e f a u lt ju d g m e n t. I

d. 28 j udgm enti n E m cas co coul d be fa i r l ydes cr i bed as t he pr oductof “mi s t ake, i nadvert ence , s urpr i s e, orexcus abl e ne gl ect

. ” T he 16 E m cas co d istric t c o u rt d e c id e d o n Ja n u a ry 1 4 , 1 9 8 7 th a t itw o u ld ent era def

aul tj udgm entagai ns tt he def endantunl es s he fi l ed an ans w erbyJ anuary16. 834 F

. 2d at75. B utt he def endantand hi s couns el w er e neve r inf o r m ed of thi s deci s i on and i ns t eadIn s u p p o rt o f its f o u r- f a c to r t e s t, E m cas co ci t es ni ne cases. 17 See 8 3 4 F. 2 d a t7 3

– 7 4 ( c i t i n g Za w a ds kiD e Bueno v. B ueno C astro , 8 2 2 F .2 d 4 1 6 , 4 1 9

– 2 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 7 ); Scar bor ough v. E ubanks , 7 4 7 F .2 d 8 7 1 , 8 7 5

– 7 8 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 4 ); Hr i t z v
. Wo ma C or p. , 7 3 2 F .2 d 1 1 7 8 , 1 1 8 1 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 4 ); $55, 518. 05 i n U

. S. C ur r ency , 7 2 8 F .2 d a t 1 9 4

– 9 5 ; In re Ma cMe e k in , 722 F. 2d 32, 3 5 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 3 ); G ross , 7 0 0 F .2 d a t 1 2 2 ; Fel i ci ano , 691 F. 2d a t 6 5 6 ; Farnese , 6 8 7 F .2 d a t 7 6 4 ; D o n n e lly v . Jo h n s-Ma n v ill e Sal es C or

p. , 677 F. 2d 339, 34 2 (3d C i r . 1982) )

. W e have al r eadydi s cus s ed $55, 518. 05 in U

. S. C ur r ency , G ross , Fe l i ci ano , an d Farnese . See supra n o te 1 5

. Zaw ads kiis e x p re ss lyb a se d o n th e “ e x c u sa b le n e g lec t” f a c to r o f R u le 60( b) ( 1)

. 822 F. 2d at417–18 & n. 1. O uropi ni on i n H ritz ref ers to R u le 6 0 (b ) a s a w h o le ra th e r th a n a n y o f th e s ix c la u s e s . See H rit z , 7 3 2 F .3 d a t 1 1 8 2 n .3 ; see al so i d. a t 1 1 8 6 n .1 (G a rt h , J ., concurr i ng)

. T he di s t r i ctcour t’ s opi ni on i n H ritz , h o w ev er, m a k e s c lea r th a t th e o rd e r b e in g a p p e a led w a s b a se d o n R u le 6 0 (b )( 1 ). See H

r i t z v. W om a C or p. , 92 F. R

. D

. 3 6 4 , 366 (W .D

. P a . 1 9 8 1 ). Scar bor ough and D o n n e lly a re d ire c t ap p e a ls of gr ant s of di s m i s s al underR ul e 41, notappea l s of a dec i s i on gr ant i ng ordeny i ng a moti on t o s etas i de a pr evi ous l y - ent er ed d e f a u lt ju d g m e n t. Scar bor ough , 7 4 7 F .2 d a t 8 7 4

– 7 5 ; D o n n e lly , 6 7 7 F .2 d 3 4 0

– 4 1

. S im ila rl y , M a cMe e k in i s a di r ect appea l of a 29 w er e err oneous l yt ol d that the ycoul d averta def aul tj udgm ent m er el y byent er i ng an appe ar ance , w hi ch theydi d on J anuary15. I d. G iv e n th e s e f

a c ts , E m cas co w as i n eff ecta R ul e 60( b) ( 1) c a se . S e c o n d , m o st o f th e c a se s th a t E m cas co ci t es i n s uppor tof its f o u r- p a rt te s t a re a p p lic a tio n s o f R u le 6 0 (b )( 1 ). See 834 F. 2d a t 7 3

– 7 4

. T h u s , E m cas co d o e s n o t p ro v id e a tes t th a t is

17d is m is s a l u n d e r R u le 3 7 . 7 2 2 F .2 d a t 3 4

– 3 6

. 30 appl i cabl e t o a R ul e 60( b) ( 6) m ot i on. W e a c k n o w led g e th a t d e f a u lt j u d g m e n ts a re g e n e ra lly d is f a v o re d in o u r c ir c u it. See $55, 518. 05 i n U

. S. C ur r ency , 728 F. 2d at 194–95 ( “[T] hi s cour t does not favorentr yof def aul t s or d e f a u lt j u d g m e n ts. W e re q u ire d o u b tf u l ca se s to b e re so lv e d in favo r of t he p arty m ov i ng t o set asi de t he d efau l tj ud gm ent ‘ so t h a tc a s e s ma yb e d e c i d e d o n t h e i rme r i t s . ’ ” ( q u o t i ng T o zerv. C har l es A

. Kr aus e Mi l l i ng C o. , 189 F. 2d 242, 244 (3d C ir

. 1 9 5 1 ))). B u t w e c a n n o t ap p lyth is p re su m p tio n a g a in st d e f a u lt j udgm ent s i f doi ng s o w oul d be i ncons i s t entw i t h t he Feder al R ules of C i vil P ro cedu re orou r cas e l aw i nterpret i ng t hese R ul es . B eca us e “e xt r aor di nary ci r cumst ance s ” ar e ess ent i al for a g r a n to f

Ru l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) r e l i e f

, a c a s e d oe s n o tb e c o me “doubt ful ” w hen the di s t r i ctcour t has m ade no a t t empt t o s how th a t s u c h c ir c u m s ta n c e s e x is t.
F i nall y , ou r ow n revi ew of the reco rd d o e s n ot s ug gest t h a tt h e c i r c u ms t a n c e s o f t h i s c a s e a r e “ e x t r a o r d i n a r y ” a s we h a v e d e f

in e d th is te rm in o u r c a se law . T h e D e f e n d a n ts a c k n o w led g e th a t th e ir d e c isio n n o t to c o n tes t th e C a lifo rn ia ju d g m e n t w a s th e re su lt o f a d e lib e ra te c h o ice

. T h u s, th e d e f a u lt j udgm entcannotbe s ai d t o h av e cre at ed an “ unexpec t ed har ds hi p. ” C

f

. B oughner , 57 2 F

. 2d at97 8. S i nce n othing els e in the rec o rd a p p ea rs t o q u ali fyas a n “e x tr ao rdin ary ci r cumst ance ” s uffi ci entt o j us t ify set t i ng as i de any ju d g m e n t, l et alon e o n e ent er ed bya di ffe r entcour t , w e w i l l vaca t e the D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s O rd e r s e ttin g a s id e th e d e f a u lt ju d g m e n t.I n I n r e U ni ver s alD is pl ay & Sign C o. , 54 1 F

. 2 d 1 4 2 ( 3d 18 C ir. 1 9 7 6 ), w e a llo w e d a re g iste rin g c o u rt to c o n sid e r a R u le 60( b) ( 4) m ot i on, but w e not ed t hat t he par t y s eeki ng t o enfor ce t he j udgm enthad notobj ect ed t o t he r egi s t er i ng cour t ’ s pow er to d o s o . I

d. at143 n. 6. 31

I V.
We n e x tc o n f

r o n ta q u e s t i o n t h a tp a r a l l e l s t h e o n e we addr es s ed about R ul e 60(b) ( 6) : does a feder al di s t r i ctcour thave the p o w er to c o n side r a m o ti o n to v ac ate a n o ther d istri ct co u rt ’s jud g m en t un d er R u le 6 0 (b)(4 ) on the g rou n d that the latt er c o u rt lac k e d p e rso n a l ju risd ictio n o v e r th e d e f e n d a n t? N e ith e r p a rty h as c o n tend ed that the D istri ct C o u rtlack s th is p o w er. N evert hel es s , w e w i l l expl ai n w hyw e hol d t hatt hi s pow er e x is ts

.Ru l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) a l l o ws a c o u r tt o r e l i e v e a p a r t yf r o m a f in a l ju d g m e n t if “ th e ju d g m e n t is v o id .” A ju d g m e n t is v o id w ith in th e m e a n in g o f

R u le 6 0 (b )(4 ) if th e c o u rt th a t re n d e re d it la c k e d p e rs o n a l j u r i s d ic tio n o v e r t h e d e f e n d a n t. S e e Ma rs h a ll v. B d. of E duc. , 575 F. 2d 417, 422 ( 3d C i r . 1 9 7 8 )

. A l t hough t her e i s n o q ues t i on t hata courtm aygr anta R ul e 60( b) ( 4) m ot i on t o vaca t e one of i t s ow n j ud g m en ts , w e have not e x p licitlyru led o n w h e th e r a c o u rt h a s th e p o w e r to g ra n t a R u le 60( b) ( 4) m ot i on t o vaca t e anot her cour t ’ s j udgm entforl ack of per s onal j ur i s di ct i on. 18
F iv e c irc u its h a v e sta ted e ith e r in h o ld in g s o r d icta th a t a r egi s t er i ng cour t has t he pow er t o heara R ul e 60( b) ( 4) m ot i on.32 T h ree o f th e s e circu it s ex p li cit lyh eld th at a reg ist ering co u rt m ayvaca t e a de faul tj udgm entof a ren d er i ng cour tw hen the re n d e rin g c o u rt lac k e d p e rso n a l ju risd ictio n o v e r th e d e f e n d a n t. C ovi ngt on , 6 2 9 F .2 d a t 7 3 2

– 3 4 (S e c o n d C irc u it); H ar per Macl eod , 2 6 0 F .3 d a t 3 9 4

– 9 5 (F if th C irc u it); P et ers on , 871 F. 2d at951 & n. 2 ( T enth C i r cui t )

. T h e F ir s tC i r cui tendor s ed the v i e w of t h e s e c i r c u i t s i n d i c t a , r e c o g n i z i n g t h a tRul e 6 0 ( b) ( 4) c h a llen g e s to d e f

a u lt j u d g m e n ts a re o n e o f th e tw o e x c e p tio n s to th e g e n e ra l ru le th a t R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n s m u st b e a d d r e ss e d to th e re n d e ri n g c o u rt

. See I ndi an H ead , 689 F. 2d at250–51. T he N inth C i r cui tendor s ed a r egi s t er i ng cour t ’ s pow ert o vaca t e a r ender i ng cour t ’ s j udgm ent under R ul e 60(b) ( 4) , buti t s hol di ng addr es s ed a Rul e 60(b )(4) m ot i on bas ed on a c hal l enge t o t he cons t i tuti onal i t yof the r ender i ng cour t ’ s j udgm entr athert han t he r ender i ng cour t ’ s per s onal j ur i s di ct i on. 93 F. 3d at639–40. W e not e thatt he E as t ern D i s t r i ct of Penns y l vani a has pr oduced a t h o r o u g h a n d wel l

- r e a s o n e d o p i n i o n i n O n Trac k T ranspor t at i on, I

nc. v. Lakes i de W

ar ehous e & Truc ki ng, I nc. , 2 4 5 F .R .D . 2 1 3 (E .D . P a . 2 0 0 7 ), in w h ich it h e ld th a t a r egi s t er i ng cour thas t he pow er t o deci de a R ul e 60( b) ( 4) m ot i on chal l engi ng a r ender i ng cour t ’ s defa ul tj udgm entforl ack of s u b je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n . I d. a t 2 1 4

– 2 3

. T h e S e v e n t h Ci r c u i ti s a n o u t l i e ro n t h i s i s s u e . As we di s cus s e d a b o v e , th e Seventh C i r cui tconcl uded i n E l i t e E rect ors th a t th e re g iste rin g c o u rt “ w a s f r e e to d isre g a rd th e ju d g m e n t, w i t houtfor m al l y annul l i ng i tunderR ul e 60( b) ( 4) , i f the re n d e ri n g c o u rt la ck ed [p erso n al or su b ject-m att e r] ju ri s d ic tio n .” 212 F. 3d at1034–35. B eca us e the r egi s t er i ng cour tcannot a n n u l th e ju d g m e n t u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b )(4 ), th e m o st it ca n d o is d e c lin e to e n f

o rc e th e ju d g m e n t— w h ile le a v in g th e ju d g m e n t in33 p la c e s o th a t o th e r j u ri s d ic tio n s c a n e n f o rc e it. See i d. A s t he E as t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y lvani a not ed i n O n Trac k , t hi s i s an
“ i m p ra c tic a b le ” s o lu tio n . See 2 4 5 F. R. D. a t2 1 9

– 2 0

. I f t he r ender i ng cour tm er el y i s s ued a defa ul t j udgm ent , t hen i tnever a c tu a lly lit ig a ted th e iss u e o f p e rso n a l ju risd ictio n . In c o n tra st, t he regi st eri ng cou rtw i l l hav e act uall yl i t i gated t he is sue. T hu s, t he r egi s t er i ng cour t ’ s j udgm entw i l l have pr ecl us i ve ef fec t , and a def endant“coul d t hen move t he r ender i ng cour t t o vaca t e the j udgm enton t he bas i s t hati tl acke d j ur i s di ct ion , u si ng t he deci s i o n o f the r egi s t er i ng cour toffe ns i vel y . ” I d. T h is w o u ld lea d to the sam e re su ltas v ac ati n g the ju d g m en t al tog ethe r, e x c e pt w i t h o n e e x t r a s t e p , a l o n g wi t h t h e e x p e n d i tu r e o f t i me a n d re s o u rc e s th a t th is s te p w o u ld e n ta il. I d. at220. W e s ee no r eas on t o br eak w i th the m aj or i t yof ci r cui t s and embr ace t he c u m b e rs o m e p ro c e s s e n d o rs e d b yth e S e v e n th C ir c u it.
F in a lly , w e d o n o t th in k a re g iste rin g c o u rt se rio u sly t h r e a t e n s t h e i n t e r e s ti n c o mi t ywhe n i tv a c a t e s a r e n d e r i ng cour t ’ s defa ul tj udgm entunderR ul e 60( b) ( 4) for la ck of per s onal j ur i s di ct i on. I f the r ender ing co u rtdi d nothave p e r s o n a l ju risd ictio n , the n th e ju d g m e n t w a s n o t m e re ly err oneou s; i tnevers houl d have be en ent er ed i n t he fi r s tpl ace . M or eover , w hen the r ender i ng cour tent er s a d e fa u lt j udgm ent bas ed on nothi ng butone party ’s f ai l ur e t o appea r , t her e i s no r i s k t hat t he cour t s w i l l r eac h oppos i t e conc l us i ons on per s onal ju r is d ictio n b e c a u se th e re n d e rin g c o u rt w a s n o t re q u ire d to addr es s t he i s s ue. Fi nal l y , as t he O n Trac k c o u rt n o ted , co m ity “mustb e bal ance d agai ns tt he l ongs t andi ng pr i nci pl e that‘ [a] defe nd ant i s alw ay s fr ee t o ignore t he judi ci al proceed i ng s, ri sk a d efa ul tj udgm ent , and then cha l l enge thatj udgm enton j u r i s d i c t i o n a l g r o u n d s i n a c o l l a t e r a l p r o c e e d i n g . ’ ” 2 4 5 F

. R. D.34 213, 221 ( ci t i ng Ins. C orp . o f I r
. , Ltd

. v
. Comp a g n i e des B auxi t es de G ui nee , 4 56 U

. S. 694, 706 ( 1982) )

. T he l at t er pr i nci pl e w oul d be underm i ned i f w e hel d t hatR ul e 60( b) ( 4) act i ons coul d onl ybe br oughti n t he r ender i ng cour tt hat a lle g e d ly la c k e d p e rs o n a l ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h e d e f e n d a n t.
V.
W e n o w re a c h th e q u e stio n th a t th e p a rties o rig in a lly asked the D i stri ctC ou rtt o ad dress : w hethert he C al i for n ia di s t r i ctcour tpos s es s ed per s onal j ur i s di ct i on overt he D efen dan t s. W e hav e t he pow er t o r esol ve this i ssue oursel ves, r athert han r emand i t t o t he D i s t r i ct C our t , beca us e w e conduc t d e n o vo re v iew o f

ju risd ictio n a l issu e s ra ise d u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b )( 4 ). See Page v. Schw ei ker , 7 8 6 F

. 2 d 1 5 0 , 1 5 2 (3d C ir

. 1986)

. B ot h par t i es have i nfor m ed us i n t hei r br i efs and ator al ar gum ent t hatt heyw oul d pr efe rt hatw e r es ol ve the i s s ue r ather t han rem and i t

. U nfo rtun at el y , w e are un able t o d o so, becau se w e fi nd that t he exi s t ence of per s onal j ur i s di ct i on tur ns on d i s p u t e d q u e s t i o n s o f

f a c tt h a ts h o u l d b e r e s o l v e d b y a fac t fi nder

. T her efor e, w e r emand t he mat t ert o t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt, w ith th e h o p e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt w ill re so lv e th is m at t eras pr om pt l yand as i nexpens i vel yfo r t he part i es as po ssi bl e. B el ow w e pr ovi de an ove r vi ew of the per s onal juri sd ict ion issue s in this ca se, p o inti n g o u t w h at w e b eli ev e a re th e k e yf a c tu a l d is p u te s . A . P e rso n a l Ju risd ictio n in C a lifo rn ia

“ In a d iv e rsity a c tio n , [ a C a lifo rn ia f e d e ra l d istric t co u rt] m ayexe r c i s e p e r s o n a l j ur i s di ct i on overa non- r es i dentdefe ndant35 i f j ur i s di ct i on i s pr operunderC al i forni a’ s l ong- ar m s t atut e and i f thatexer ci s e of j ur i s di ct i on acc or ds w i t h f e d e r al cons t i tut i onal due pr oces s pr i nci pl es . ” F i r em an’s Fund I ns
. C o. v. N

at ’ lB ank of C oo ps. , 103 F. 3d 888, 893 ( 9t h C i r . 1996)

. C al i forni a’ s l ongar m s t atut e pr ovi des s i m pl yt hatt he courtm ayexer ci s e per s onal j ur i s di ct i on “overa non - r es i dentdefe ndanton anybas i s not i ncons i s t entw i t h t he C al i forni a orfede r al C ons t i tut i on. ” I d. ( ci t i ng C AL
. C OD E C IV
. P R OC
. § 410. 1 0 ). “The st atut or yand cons t i tut i onal r equi r ement s t her efor e mer ge i nt o a s i ngl e due p ro c e ss tes t,” w h ich re q u ire s th a t th e d e f e n d a n t “h a v e c e rta in m i ni m um co n tact s w i t h [the forum ] s uch thatt he mai nt enanc e of the su it does notoffe nd t r adi t i onal not i ons of fa i rpl ayand s ubs t ant i al j us t i ce. ” Id

. ( ci t i ng I nt ’ lShoe C o. v. W

as hi ngt on , 3 2 6 U .S . 3 1 0 , 3 1 6 (1 9 4 5 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n o m itt e d )). A s b o th p a rties a c k n o w led g e , w e d e ter m in e w h e th e r th is re q u ire m e n t is s at isfied b yappl y i ng a thr ee- par tt es t

. T he thr ee- par tt es t , as s um m ar i zed i n P anavis i on I nt er nat i onalv. Toeppen , 141 F. 3d 13 16 (9th C i r. 19 98 ), i s as fol l ow s: ( 1) T he nonr esi dentdefe ndantm us tdo s om e ac t orcons u m m at e s om e tr ans act i on w i t h t he forum o r p e rf o rm so m e a c t b yw h ich h e p u rp o se f u lly avai l s hi m s el f of the pr i vi l ege of condu cti ng act i vi t i es i n t he forum , t her ebyi nvoki ng t he b e n e f its a n d p ro tec tio n s o f its law s; (2 ) th e c laim m us tbe one w hi ch ar i s es outof or resu l t s fr om t he def endant ’ s forum - r el at ed ac t i vi t i es ; and ( 3) exer ci s e of j ur i s di ct i on m us tbe r eas onabl e.B B I ar gues onl yt hat“s peci fi c j ur i s di ct i on” exi s t s and does 19
n o t s e e k to p ro v e th e e x is te n c e o f “ g e n e ra l ju ri s d ic tio n .” 36 141 F. 3d at 1320 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. B B I cont ends t hatal l t hr ee o f t h e s e r e q u i r e me n t s we r e s a t i s f i e d a s a ma t t e ro f

l a w. 19
B

. Purpos eful A vai l m ent
B B I a ss e r ts th a t W h ite h a s p u rp o se f u llya v a iled h e rse lf of the pr i vi l ege of

conducti n g act i vi t i es i n C al i forni a and t her ebyhas i nvoked the bene fi t s of C al i forni a l aw . B B I bas es i t s ar gum enton t he Set t l ement A gr eementas w el l as t he D e f e n d a n ts ’ a lle g e d tr a d e m a rk in f ri n g e m e n t.
1. P ur pos ef ulA vai lm ent

Through The Se t t l em ent A gr eem ent
T h e m e re e x iste n c e o f a c o n tra c t is in s u f

f icie n t to e s ta b lis h m in im u m c o n ta c ts

. B ur gerK i ng C or

p. v. R udz ew i cz , 471 U

. S. 462, 478 ( 1985) ( “I f the ques t i on i s w hetheran i ndi vi dual ’ s contr actw i t h an o u t

- of- s t at e part yal one ca n aut om at i cal l yes t abl i s h s uffi ci entm i ni m um cont act s i n t he other p a rty ’s h o m e f

o ru m , w e b e liev e th e a n sw e r c lea rlyis th a t it cannot

. ”)

. B ut a contr acti s t ypi cal l yan i nt er m edi at e s t ep betw een pa s tnegot i at i ons and futur e tr ans act i ons , and B ur ger K i ngi n st ruct s t hat“i ti s t hes e fa ct or s

— pr i ornegot i at i ons and cont empl at ed futur e conse quence s , al ong w i t h t he t er m s of the contr actand t he par t i es ’ actual cour s e of deal i ng— t hatm us tbe e v a lu a ted in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r th e d e f e n d a n t p u rp o se f

u lly es t abl i s hed mi ni m um cont act s w i t h t he forum . ” I d. a t4 7 9

. BBI argues t hat s everal aspect s o f t he S et t l em ent A greem ent’ s t erm s,37 as w ell as p ri o r n eg o ti ati o n s an d co n tem p lat ed fu ture c o n s e q u e n c e s , c re a te m in im u m c o n ta c ts

. F i rs t , B B I poi nts ou tt hat the A g reem ent cont ai ns a choi ce- of- l aw cl aus e s t at ing tha ti t“w i l l be governed byand cons t rued undert he l aw s of the S tat e of Cal i forni a. ” B r . of A pp el l ant 39. A s B ur g er K i ngpoi nt s out , a choi ce- of- l aw pr ovi s i on “s t andi ng al one w oul d be i n su ffi ci entt o confe r j ur i s di ct i on, ” butcombi ned w i t h ot herfac t or s , i tm ayr ei nfor ce a par t y ’ s “del i ber at e aff i l i at i on w i t h t he forum St at e and the r e a s on a bl e fo r e s e e a bi l i t yof po s s i bl e l i t i ga t i on t he r e . ” 47 1 U. S. at482. W e mustt her efor e cons i der ot her fac t or s befor e w e ca n deci de how m uch w ei ghtt o aff or d t o t hi s pr ovi s i on. Se co n d , B B I poi nt s outt hatt he D efe ndant s negot i at ed th e S e ttl e m e n t A g re e m e n t b ytele p h o n e a n d m a il w ith C a lif o rn ia -b a s e d B B I a n d i t s a tto rn e y s . B r. o f A p p e lla n t 4 0

. In ter p re tin g C a lifo rn ia la w , the N in th C irc u it h a s s a id th a t, or di nar i l y , us e of t he m ai l s and t el ephone “ s i m pl ydo notqual i fy as purpos eful act i vi t y i nvoki ng t he benef i t s and pr ot ect i on of the [forum ] s t at e. ” R oth v. G ar ci a Mar quez , 9 4 2 F .2 d 6 1 7 , 6 2 2 (9 th C i r . 19 9 1 ) ( quot i ng T h o s. P . G o n za lez C o rp . v. C o n se jo N aci onalD e Produccion D e C os t a R i ca , 614 F. 2d 1247, 1254 ( 9t h C i r . 1980) )

. M or eover , an i m por t antdi s t i nct i on betw een t he negot i at i ons i n B ur

gerK i ng a n d th o se in th e in sta n t ca se is t hatt he B ur

gerK i ngdefe ndantact i vel y so ughtcontr act negot i at i ons w i t h a companybas ed i n t he for um s t at e, w her eas W h i t e d i d n o tr e a c h o u tt o a n y on e i n Ca l i f o r n i a u n t i l BBI th re a te n e d litig a tio n . See Burge rK i ng , 4 7 1 U

. S. at479 ( “Es c h e wi n g t h e o p t i o n o f o p e r a t i n g a n i n d e p e n d e n tl o c al ent erpr i s e, R udzew i cz de l i ber at el y‘ [r eac hed] outbey ond’38 M i chi gan a n d negot i at ed w i t h a Fl or i da corpor at i on fort he pur chas e of a l ong- t er m fr anchi s e and the mani fol d benef i t s t hat w o u ld derive fro m af

fil iat ion w ith a n ati o n w ide o rga n izati o n . ”).
T hi r d, B B I as s ert s t hatt he D efe ndant s es t abl i s hed m i ni m um co n ta ct s “byacc ept i ng B B I ’ s s et t l ement paym ent w hi ch w as w i r ed fr om a C al i forni a bank t o defe ndant s . ” B r . of A p p e llan t 4 1 . T o u n d e rsc o re th e im p o rt a n c e o f th is p a ym e n t, B B I cites a c a se f

ro m th e S o u th e rn D istric t o f M is s is sip p i, Medi cal A s s ur an ce Co. of

Mis s is s i

ppi v. Jack

s on , 864 F

. S u p p . 5 7 6 (S .D

. M is s . 1 9 9 4 ). Jack s on i nvol ved a sui tbr ought bya M i s s i s s i ppi

- bas ed m edi cal m al pr act i ce i ns ur ance company agai ns tt w o A l abama r es i dent s : M oor e, t he vi ct i m of a bot ched oper at i on i n M i s s i s s i ppi t hatcr eat ed a n ee d foraddi t i onal s u rg e ry; a n d J a c k s o n , M o o r e ’ s a tto rn e y . I d. at577. J acks on t hr eat ened t o s ue t he i ns ur ance companyon M oor e’ s behal f and d e m a n d e d a $ 1 ,1 0 0 ,0 0 0 s e ttle m e n t. I d. A ft er“a s er i es of l et t er s and t el ephone c al l s , ” M oor e agr eed to a s et t l ement of $56, 250 fr om t he i ns ur ance companyi n excha nge foran a b s o lu te re le a s e . I

d. J acks on and M oor e ac cept ed and nego t i at ed the $56, 250 chec k t hatt he i ns ur ance company t ender ed, butt heyr efus ed to exec ut e the abs ol ut e r el eas e that th e c o m p a n yh a d a ls o s e n t th e m . I d. T heyr etur n ed an al t er ed v e rs io n o f

th e re le a s e f

o rm in s te a d

. I

d. at578. T he i ns ur ance companys ued J acks on an d M oor e i n a M i s s i s s i ppi fede r al d is tr ic t c o u rt , a lle g in g b re a c h o f th e s e ttle m e n t a g re e m e n t. I d. at578. Jac k son and M oor e cl ai m ed thatt he courtl acke d per s onal j ur i s di ct i on overt hem becaus e the i ns ur ance company h a d s e n t th e p a ym e n t a n d th e re le a s e d o c u m e n ts to A la b a m a . I d. T he cour t r ej ect ed t hei r cl ai m , poi nt i ng outt hat“the che ck w as s entfr om M i s s i s s i ppi and w as ul t i m at el y pai d bya M i s s i s s i ppiW hi t e’ s at t or ney d id resp o nd t o B B I ’ s w arni ngs of a 20 l aw s ui tw i t h hi nt s of a count er s ui t

. N onethel es s , i tw as B B I t hat s e t e v e n ts in m o tio n . 39 bank, ” that“the r el eas e, w hi ch i s centr al t o t hi s act i on” w as s ent fr om M i s s i s s i ppi and w as t o be r etur ned t o M i s s i s s i ppi , and that

“ d e f e n d a n ts d id , in f

a c t, retu rn a [ m o d if

ied ] re lea se d o c u m e n t” to M is s is s ip p i. I

d. M or eover , t he courtpoi nt ed outt hatJ acks on in iti a te d th e tra n sa c tio n b yth re a ten in g to su e th e M iss iss ip p ib a s e d in s u ra n c e c o m p a n y . I d. a t 5 7 9

. D e s p ite s o m e s u p e rf ic ia l s im ila ri tie s , Jack s on is d ist ing u isha b le. A lth o u g h W h it e a n d h er a tt o rne y , li k e M o o re and J acks on, acc ept ed paym entfr om a bank l ocat ed i n t he forum sta te in e x c h a n g e f

o r a c c e p tin g a se ttl e m e n t ag re e m e n t, th e yd id n o t in it ia te th e tra n sa c tio n b yth re a ten in g to su e a C a lifo rn ia company . A l s o, w her eas M o o re had tr avel ed t o M i s s i s s i ppi

20 fors ur geryper for m ed bya M i s s i s s i ppi doct or , 864 F. Supp. at 5 7 7 , W h ite h a d n o t d ire c ted a n ya c ti v itie s to w a rd C a lifo rn ia befor e B B I cont act ed her

. T hus, even i f w e r egar d Jack s on as per s uas i ve author i t y , i t does not compel a fi ndi ng of purpos eful a v a ilm e n t.
F o u rth , B B I arg u es th at t h e p arti es c o n te m p lated fu ture cons equenc es . A m ong other thi ngs , t he A gr eements t at es t hat th e D e f e n d a n ts “ h e re b yirre v o c a b lya p p o in t B B I a s th e ir r es pect i ve l aw ful at t or ney - i n- fac tw i t h author i t yt o fi l e any document i n t he name of and on beha l f of [ t he D efe ndant s ] for t he purpos e of t aki ng any of t he act i ons r equi r ed by[Sect i on 4 of the A gr eement ] upon t he event of a de faul t

. ” W e agr ee thatO f c o u rse , ev e n if

W h ite c o u ld p ro v e th a t sh e re f u se d to 21 cons entt o per s onal j ur i s di ct i on i n C al i forni a dur i ng t he contr act negot i at i ons , t hi s w oul d not m at t er i f t he eve nt s s ur r oundi ng t he cont r a c to t h e r wi s e i n d i c a t e th a ts h e h a s p u rp o s e l ya v a i l ed her s el f of thatforum . I n t hi s cas e, how ever , B B I s ugges t s t hat w e ca n i nt erpr et t he choi ce- of- l aw cl aus e as pr obat i ve of W hi t e’ s acqui es cenc e t o l i t i gat i on i n a C al i forni a court , s i nce 40 t he att or ney - i n- fac tpr ovi s i on s ugges t s t hatt he part i es cont empl at ed futur e cons equenc es t o s om e ext ent

. St i l l , a l ar ge g u lf exis t s bet w een the futur e con t act s contem plat ed b yt his pr ovi s i on and t he ext ens i ve fut ur e cont act s cont empl at ed byt he B ur gerK i ngcontr act

. W her eas t he B ur gerK i ngd ef

endant “ent er ed i nt o a ca r eful l ys t ructur ed 20- y ear rel at i ons hi p t hat envi s i oned cont i nui ng and w i de- r eac hi ng cont act s w i t h B ur ger K i ng i n Fl or i da, ” i d. a t 4 8 0 , the S e ttl e m e n t A g r e e m e n t m e re ly d e sc rib e s w h a t w ill h a p p e n in th e e v e n t o f d e f a u lt.
I n s u m, we q u e s t i o n wh e t h e ra n yo f t h e f a c t o r s t h a tBBI ci t es (t h e choi ce of

l aw cl aus e, t he mai l and t el ephone negot i at i ons , t he ac cept ance of the s et t l ement chec k, and the att o rne y -i n -f

a c t p ro v is io n ) w o u ld in d iv id u a lly su p p o rt pu rposeful avail m ent. T he com bined force of th e se f act ors, how ever , m aybe s uffi ci ent

. O n t he otherhand, W hi t e has asser t ed thatt he o ri ginal agreem ent conta ined a cl ause cons ent i ng t o per s onal j ur i s di ct i on i n C al i forni a t hatt he part i es r e mo v e d a tWh i t e ’ s i n s i s t e n c e . I f t ru e , t h i s s u g g e s t s t h a twe s houl d hes i t at e t o r ead the t er m s of the contr act , es peci al lyt he c h o ice -o f

-la w c lau se , as in d ica tiv e o f th e “ re a so n a b le f o re se e a b ili tyo f

p o ss ib le litig a tio n ” in C a lif o rn ia c o u rt. See

21C al i forni a court s ar e more fami l i arw i t h C al i forni a l aw tha n othercou rt s. If W hit e speci fi c a l l yobj ect ed to a cl ause cons ent i ng t o per s onal j ur i s di ct i on, t hi s couns el s us agai ns ts uch an i nt erpr et at i on of the choi ce- of- l aw cl aus e. A tor al ar gum ent , B B I s ai d t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tw oul d be 22
u n a b le to c o n sid e r th is ev id e n c e o n re m a n d b e c a u se it w o u ld v io late th e p a ro l ev id e n c e ru le. B u t th e iss u e h e re is n o t h o w to i nterprett he co ntr act , bu tw hetherpersonal j uri sdi ct i on exis t s. T hi s r equi r es an i nqui r y i nt o “pr i ornegot i at i ons , ” B ur gerK i ng , 4 7 1 U

. S

. at 4 7 9 , ev en w h en the c o n tr ac t pu rpo rt s to b e the en ti re a g re e m e n t b e tw e e n th e p a rt ie s . 41 471 U

. S. at482. B B I cont es t s t hi s fac t , an d w e do nothave evi dence of i ti n t he r ecor d ot hert han W hi t e’ s aff i davi tand b rie f. T h e re f

o re , o n re m a n d th e D istric t C o u rt m a yw ish to i nv est i gate W hit e’s cl ai m regar ding th e con t ractneg oti at i on s, s i nce i tcoul d sh ed l i ghton t he ext entt o w hi ch the part i es contem p lat ed an o n g o ing relati o n sh ip w ith C ali fo rnia, i ncl udi ng t he pos s i bi l i t yof l i t i gat i on t her e. 22
2. P ur pos ef ulA vai lm ent

Through Tr adem ar k I

nf r i ngem ent
B B I co n tend s tha t th e D ef en d an ts’ all eg ed tr ad em ark i nfri ng em ent cr eat ed p ers on al j uri sdi ct i on i n C al i forni a beca use t he D efe ndant s purpos eful l ydi r ect ed thei ract i vi t i es t ow ar d t hat forum . B r . o f A p p ell ant42. R el y i ng on t he “e ffe ct s t es t ” of C alder v. Jones , 465 U

. S. 783 ( 1984) , B B I s ay s t hatpurpos eful avai l m entexi s t s i f t he defenda nt “( 1) comm i t t ed an i nt ent i onal act , ( 2) expr es s l y ai m ed at t he for um s t at e, ( 3) caus i ng har m t hatB B I pr ovi des a mislead ing des cr i pt i on of P anavis i on , 23 say ing that it h eld t h at the “e ff ec ts test ” i s “sa tis f

ie d w h ere p lai n ti ff all eg ed inf

ri n g e m e n t of

tr ad em ark d u e to d ef

en d an t’ s use of plai nti ff’s t radem ark as do m ai n nam e. ” T his i s d ire c tly contr aryt o t he court ’ s l anguage r equi r i ng “som ethi ng m or e” 42 th e d e f e n d a n t k n o w s is lik e ly to b e s u f f e re d in th e f

o ru m s ta te .” D o le F o o d

C o . v. W

a tts , 303 F. 3d 11 0 4 , 1111 ( 9t h C i r . 2002) ( s um m ar i zi ng C alder ’s “ e f f e c ts te s t” ).
B B I cont ends t hatt r ademar k i nfr i ngement “i s t r eat ed as an int enti on al t ortfor ju ri sdi ct i on al pu rposes. ” T he fir stcase t hat B B I ci t es for this propo si t i on i s Sebas t i an I nt ’ l , I nc. v. R u ss o lil lo , N o. 00- 03476 C M , 2000 U

. S. D i s t

. L E X I S 21510 ( C

. D

. C al

. A ug. 25, 2005)

. I n R u ss o lil lo , t he cour t hel d t hatt he defe ndant ’ s t r ademar k i nfr i ngement t h rou g h t he s al e of count er fei tgoods w as “i nt ent i onal ” bec aus e the pl ai nt i ff ha d w r i t t en a l et t ert o put the d efendanton not i ce of t he i n f r i n g e me n t

. 2 0 0 0 U. S

. Di s t

. LE XI S 2 1 5 1 0 , a t* 1 3

. BBI c laim s t h a t R u ss o lil lo i s anal og ou s t o the i nst ant cas e, becau se B B I in formed t he D efe ndant s of thei ri nfr i ngement i n 2003, pr i ort o t he s et t l eme n t, an d i nfor m ed them of t hei rcont i nui ng i n f r i n g e ment on F e b ru a r y1 , 2 0 0 5

. Th e s e c o n d c a s e t h a tBBI ci t es i s P anavis i on . I n P anavis i on , t he cour t s t at ed thatal t hough t he d efen dan t ’s regi strat i on of th e plai nti ff’s tradem ark as a dom ai n name w as notsu ff ici entt o es t abl i s h j ur i s di ct i on i n t he forum st at e, t he d efen dan t ’s “schem e t o regi st er [the p l ai nti ff’s] t r a d e ma r k s a s h i s d o ma i n n a me s f o rt h e p u rp o s e o f

e x t o r t i ng m oney ” fr om t he pl ai nt i ff w as an i nt ent i onal act di r ect ed att he f o ru m sta te. 1 4 1 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 2 . T h e in sta n t c a s e is

23t han us e of a t r ademar k as a domai n name: W e a g ree that sim p lyreg ist ering so m eo n e e lse’s tr adem ar k as a domai n name and pos t i ng a w eb si t e on t he Int erneti s not s uff i ci ent t o subj ect a p a rtyd o m icile d in o n e sta te to ju risd ictio n in a n o th e r. . . . [T ]h e re m u st b e ‘so m e th in g m o re ’ to d e m o n stra te th a t th e d e f e n d a n t d ire c ted h is act i vi t yt ow ar d t he forum s t at e. H er e, t hathas been s how n.
P anavis i on , 1 4 1 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 2 (c ita tio n o m itte d ). 43 di s t i ngui s habl e fr om bot h R u ss o lil lo a nd P a navis i on . In R ussol ill o , t he courti ndi cat ed thati tw as t he expl i ci tw arni ng about t r ademar k i nfr i ngement , not t he act of count er fei t i ng i t s el f, t hatr ender ed the def endant ’ s t r ademar k i nfr i ngement “i nt ent i onal

. ” 2000 U

. S. D i s t

. L E X I S 21510, at*13. A l t hough B B I a lso se n t a w a rn in g to th e D e f e n d a n ts, th e re c o rd su g g e sts t hatt he D efe ndant s act ed i n good fai th to rem edyt he al l eged in f rin g e m e n t. If th is is tru e , the n a n yo n g o in g “ in f rin g e m e n t” w as not the resul tof int enti on al act s on the D efe nd ants ’ par t

— unl es s w e agr ee w i t h B B I’ s cl ai m thats ur r ender i ng c o n tro l o f

th e tele p h o n e n u m b e r w a s a b so lu telyn e c e ss a ryto p re v e n t f

u rt h e r i n f

ri n g e m e n t. P anavis i on s uppor t s t he D efe ndant s , beca us e i t m akes cl eart hatt he mer e use of another par t y ’ s t r ademar k ( i

. e. , r egi s t r at i on of dom ai n names a nd cr eat i on of w eb s i t es ) do es notcons t i tut e an i nt ent i onal act ai m ed at t he forum s t at e for j ur i s di ct i onal purpos es . 141 F. 3d at 1322. I t i s pos s i bl e, how ever , t hat t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ngsN ot al l ci r cui t s have a dopt ed thi s appr oach. For exampl e, 24 t he Tent h C i r cui t r equi r es t hat “the for um s t at e i t s el f m us tbe the

‘ foca l poi ntof the t o rt ’, ” an appr oach thati thas des cr i bed as “s om ew hat m or e r es t r i ct i ve” than B a n c ro ft

. D u dn iko v v . C h a lk & V e rm ili o n F in e A rts , 514 F. 3d 1063 ( 10t h C i r . 2008) ( ci t i ng Far W es t C api t al

, I nc. v. Tow ne , 4 6 F

. 3 d 1 0 7 1 , 1 0 8 0 (10 th C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ))

. 44 of fa ctw i l l r evea l m or e about w hether W hi t e’ s behavi orcan be c o n s tru e d a s “ in te n tio n a l.”
B B I al s o cont ends t hatt he D efen d an ts ’ behavi orw as
“ e x p re ss lya im e d a t th e f o ru m sta te.” W e d o n o t f in d it i m m edi atelyobvi ous w hyt he fa i l ur e t o change N ew J er s ey t el ephone l i s t i ngs and to sur r endera N ew J er s eyt el ephone n u mb e ri s b e h a v i o r“ e x p r e s s l ya i me d ” a t Cal i fo r n i a . Bu tBBI r el i es on l anguage i n B ancr of t& M as t ers v. A ugus t a N

at i onal , 2 2 3 F .3 d 1 0 8 2 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ), w h ich sta tes th a t “ th e [ ‘e x p re ss ly ai m i ng’ ] r equi r ement i s s at i s fi ed w hen t he defenda nti s al l eged t o have e ngaged i n w r ongful conductt ar get ed ata pl ai nt i ff w h o m th e d e f

e n d a n t k n o w s to b e a re s id e n t o f th e f o ru m s ta te .” 223 F. 3d at 1 086. E ven though t he D efe ndant s ’ al l eged in f ri n g e m e n t w a s l i m ite d to a c tiv itie s in N e w J e rs e y , B a n c ro ft im p lie s th a t b e c a u s e it w a s ta r g e te d a t f ra n c h is e e s o f

B B I, a know n “ r e s i dent ” of Cal i forni a, i tw as t her efor e expr es s l yai m ed a t C a lifo rn ia. B u t P anavis i on sugg est s a contr aryres ult

. 24 G i ven the hol di ng i n Pa n a v is i on th at t h e u se o f a co m p an y ’s tra d e m a r k s in d o m a in n a m e s a n d w e b site s is n o t “e x p re ss ly ai m ed” a tt he for u m i n w hi ch the companyhas i t s pr i nci pal pl ace of bus i nes s , 141 F. 3d at1322, w e ques t i on w hetherTh e Ni n t h Ci r c u i th a s o v e r ru l e d t he “ br un t of t h e h a r m” 25
r equi r ement , r epl aci ng i tw i t h a “juri s di ct i onal l ys uffi ci ent a m o u n t o f h a rm ” re q u ir e m e n t. Y ah oo ! Inc. v. L a L igu e C on tre L e R a c is me , 4 3 3 F .3 d 1 1 9 9 , 1 2 0 7 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (“ W e tak e th is oppor tuni t y t o cl ar i fy our l aw and t o s t at e t hatt he ‘ brunt ’ of the har m n ee d n otbe s uffe r ed i n t he forum s t at e. I f a j ur i s di ct i onal l ys uffi ci entamount of harm i s s uffe r ed i n t he forum s t at e, i tdoes notm at t ert hateven mor e harm m i ghthave b e e n s u f f e re d in a n o th e r s ta te .” ).

45 l i s t i ngs i n N ew Jer s eyt el ephone di r ect or i es coul d be c h a ra c te ri z e d a s a c tio n s e x p re s s ly ai m e d a t C a lif o rn ia

. F in a lly , B B I c o n ten d s th a t th e “ b ru n t o f th e h a rm ” to its re p u tatio n a n d p ro f

its is f e lt in C a lifo rn ia b e c a u se C a lifo rn ia is i t s pri n c ipal place of bu si ness. B B I ar gu es that j ustbecau se 25 B B I i s a C al i forni a corpor at i on, a j ur i s di ct i on all y s uffi ci ent a m o u n t o f

e c o n o m ic h a rm is f

e lt in C a lif

o rn ia

. S e e H

a rr is Ru t s k y & Co. I

n s
. S e r v s
. v
. Be l l& Cl e men t s , Lt d. , 328 F. 3d 11 22 , 11 31 (9th C i r. 20 03 ) ( for “a C al i forni a corpo rat i on w ho se pr i nci pal pl ace of bus i nes s i s i n C al i forni a, . . . t he brunt of the har m [is] f

el ti n C al i forni a. ”)

. W e ca nnotr es ol ve thi s i s s ue w ith o u t m o re e v id e n c e . B B I ’ s C a lifo rn ia c o m p lain t su g g e sts th a t th e D e f

e n d a n ts’ alle g e d in f

rin g e m e n t is c a u sin g e c o n o m ic har m t o B B I as a w hol e. B utW hi t e cl ai m ed that as of M ar ch 9, 2005, hercompanyhad notr ece i ved a s i ngl e ca ll fr om any one confus ed byt he err oneous l i s t i ng, w hi ch w oul d s ugges tt hat l i t t l e ec onom i c har m has been i nfl i ct ed upon the N ew J er s ey fr anchi see s, l etal one the nat i onal ent i t y . W i t houtfur t her fac t fi ndi ng, i ti s i m pos s i bl e t o deci d e w h ich par t yi s corr ect46 aboutt he ec onom i c ef

fec t s fel tbyB B I i n C al i forni a. C

. D oes T he C aus e of A ct i on A r i s e O utof Forum - R el at ed A ct i vit i es?
T h e n e x t p ro n g o f

th e th re e -p a rt tes t f o r s p e c if

ic j u r i s d i c t i on i s wh e t h e rt h e c a u s e o f a c t i o n a r i s e s o u to f

f o ru mre late d a c tiv iti e s. A lth o u g h th is is a d istin c t re q u ire m e n t, in th is c a se th e a n a ly sis is id e n tica l to th e “ p u rp o se f u l av a ilm e n t” anal y s i s . BBI h a s n o t a s s e r t e d t h a t W h i t e o r h e r c o mpa ny has any c o n n e c tio n to C a lifo rn ia a sid e f ro m th o se a ss o c iate d w ith the c au ses o f a cti o n fo r bre ac h o f c o n tr a ct an d tr ad em ark i nfr i ngem en t. T hus , i f the fi r s tpr ong i s s at i s fi ed, t hen the s e c o n d p ro n g is s a tis f

ie d a s w e ll.
D

. F ai r Pl ayand S ub st anti al Just i ce, a. k. a. R easona bleness
If th e D istri ct C o u rtfin d s tha t th e f ir st tw o p ron g s are sa tisf ied , itm u st c o n sid e r w h e th e r “ m in im u m re q u ire m e n ts i nher enti n t he conc eptof ‘ fai r pl ay and s ubs t ant i al j us t i ce’ m ay defe atthe r eas onabl eness of j ur i s di ct i on even i f the def endant has purpos eful l yengage d i n forum act i vi t i es . ” B ur gerK i ng , 471 U

. S. at 477–78. A l t hough t her e i s a “s t r ong pr es um pt i on of re a s o n a b le n e s s ” if

p u rp o s e f

u l a v a ilm e n t e x is ts , D ol e Food , 303 F

. 3d at11 17 , cou rt s m ustst i l l con si der r easona bleness as a se p a ra te f

a c to r. T h is is a h e a v ilyf a c t-b a se d in q u iry . C a lifo rn ia has i dent i fi ed seve n fac t or s t hat aff ect r eas onabl enes s , none of w hi ch ar e det er m i nat i ve: ( 1) t he ext ent of the def endant s ' purpos eful i nt er j ect i on i nt o t he forum s t at e' s affai r s ; ( 2) t he47 bur den on t he def

endantof def

endi ng i n t he forum ; ( 3) t he ext entof conf l i ct w it h t he s over ei gnt yof t he defenda nt s ' s t at e; ( 4) t he forum s t at e' s i nt er es t i n adj udi cat i ng t he di s put e; ( 5) t he m os t e f

f i c i e n t j u d i c i a l r e s o l u t i o n of t he c o n tro v e rsy; ( 6 ) th e im p o rta n c e o f th e f o ru m to t he pl ai nt i ff’ s i nt er es t i n conveni entand ef fec t i ve r el i ef; and ( 7) t he exi s t ence of an al t ernat i ve f o ru m.
H ar r is R ut s ky , 328 F. 3d at1132 ( ci t i ng C or e- V ent C or p. v. Nob e lI n d u s
. AB , 11 F

. 3d 14 82 , 14 87 –8 8 ( 9th C i r. 19 93 ))

. M ost of thes e fa ct or s cannotbe r es ol ved w i t hout fac t fi ndi ng fr om t he D istric t C o u rt. F o r e x a m p le, th e D istric t C o u rt m ig h t w ish to cons i dert he s econd f

act ori n l i ghtof the s t at ement s t hr oughout W h ite’s b rie f

s th a t it is e x tre m e lyb u rd e n so m e f o r a sm a ll bus i nes s i n N ew J er s eyw i t h no C al i forni a conne ct i o n s ( as i de f ro m , p e rh a p s, th o se c re a ted th ro u g h its d e a lin g s w ith B B I) to l i t i gat e i n C al i forni a. T o deci de the fi fth fac t or , t he D i s t ri ct C our ts houl d “foc us on t he l ocat i on of t he evi dence and w it n es s es . ” H

ar r is R ut s ky , 328 F. 3d at1133. I f m os tof the evi dence and w i t nes s es ar e l ocat ed i n N ew J er s ey , w her e the al l eged i nfri ng em e n toccu rr ed, t his fact or w ei gh s agai nst per s onal j ur i s di ct i on i n C al i forni a.

V I.
W e w il l vaca t e the A pr i l 5, 2006 O r derof the D i s t r i ct C our tfort he D i s t ri ctof N ew J er s ey , i ncl udi ng t he as s es s m ent48 o f f ee s an d co sts. W e rem an d this case so that the D istri ct C o u rt m aydeci de t he ques t i on t hat t he par t i es as ked i tt o deci de over tw o y e a rs a g o : w h e th e r to se t as id e th e C a lifo rn ia d e f a u lt j udgm entforl ack of

per s onal j ur i s di ct i on.49 

### B u d get B lin d s, In c. v. Wh ite, et a l., Nos

. 06- 2610 and 06- 2733 C o w en , C ircu it Ju d g e, co n currin g inp art an dd issentin g inp art.

Thi s c a s e ari s e s out of the c ont e xt of a28 U. S. C. § 1963 reg istratio np ro ceed in g , an dm o re f u n d am entally , inv o lv es a coll at er alatta ck to a f

orei gn default j ud gm ent. It is well -s ettl ed th at the gr ounds for

obt a i ni ng c ol l at e r a lr e l i e f ar e e xtr e m ely limited . T h e m aj o rity , h o w ev er, h o ld s th at reg isterin g co urts h av e th e p o w er to v acate a f o reig nj u d g m ent ren d eredb y th eir si st er federal courts purs uant to Federa l Rule of C ivilProcedure 6 0 (b )(6 ). Ind o in g so , it b eco m es th e f irst co urt inth e n atio nto reachth is co n clu sio n . B ecau se I th inkth is h o ld in g p o tentially cr eate s a ci rc uit spli t wh er e no ne exis te d b efore, andbeca use I que s t i on w h eth e r

s uc h abr oa d r

ul i ng i s ne c e s s ary

unde r the p articu lar circum stan ces o f th is case, I resp ectf

u lly d issent.

U n d e r th e c i r c um s t an c e s b e f o r e u s , o n e m ay o n lyseekto coll at er al ly

vacatea default

ju dg m ent ob ta ined in another juri s di c t i on ba s e d on ac ha l le nge t o the unde r l yi ng va l i di ty of th e j u d g m ent. SheetM et al W or ker s ’ N at ’ l Pension Fund v. E l i t e Ere ct or s , I nc. , 212 F. 3d 10 3 1 , 1034 ( 7t h C i r . 2000) ( “[a ] part yt hat s i m plyrefuses t o ap pear m a y c o ntend i n a lat er cas e th a t th e f irst trib u n a l lac k e d ju risd ictio n – th o u g h ju risd ictio n is t he onl y i s s ue thus pr es er ved”) ( emphasis i n or i gi nal ) ; Y al e v. N a t’l In d e m . C o ., 6 0 2 F .2 d 6 4 2 , 6 4 4 (4 th C ir. 1 9 7 9 ) (“ o n lyv o id j udgm ent s ar e s ubj ect t o col l at er al at t ack, and [] a voi d j udgm entA s t he maj or i t ypoi nt s o u t, o n ly the Seventh C i r cui thas 26 hel d t hat r egi s t er i ng cour t s l ack s uch author i t y . See SheetM et al W or ker s ’ Nat ’ l Pe n s i o n Fu n d v . El i t e Er e c t o r s , I n c . , 2 1 2 F. 3d 1 0 3 1 , 1 0 3 4 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); se e a lso P a c if ic R e in su ra n c e M g m t. C orp. v. Fabe, 929 F. 2d 1215, 1217 ( 7t h C i r . 1 9 91) ( “[e ] nfor cement pr ocee di ngs [pur s uant t o § 1963] do notal l ow c o lla te ra l a tta c k s o n th e ju d g m e n t” ). W e have neverexpr essl y sp o k en o n t hi s i s s ue, butour 27 p r i o rd e c i s i o n s h a v e c e r t a i n l ya s s u me d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f s uch 50 i s onl yone thati s r ender ed by a cour tl acki ng j ur i s di ct i on over t he def aul torovert he s ubj ectm at t er ”) 

### ; s e e a l s o I ns . C orp. of I r e l a nd , Lt d. v. Com pa gn i e de s Baux i t e s de G uinee, 45 6 U. S. 694, 70 6 (19 8 2 ) ( “[a ] defe ndanti s al w ay s fr ee t o i gnor e the j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs , r i s ka def aul tj udgm ent , and then cha l l enge t hatj ud g m ent on j ur i s di ct i onal gr ounds i n a col l at er al pr o c e e d i n g ” )

. Fr o m t h i s , i tn a tu r a l l yf o l l o ws t h a tr e g i s t er i ng cour t s m ayent er t ai n m ot i ons t o vacat e re gi s t er ed for ei gn j udgm ent s pur s uantt o R ul e 60( b) ( 4) , on t he basi s t hatt he re n d e ri n g c o u rt la c k e d ju ri s d ic tio n . 

### See 12 Jam es Wm . Moo re et al., M OORE 

### ’ S 

### F ED ER A L 

### P RAC TI CE 

### § 6 0.60 [3 ][ c] (3d ed. 19 97 ); 30 A m . J ur . 2d E

x e c u tio n s a n d

E n fo rc e m e n t o

f Ju d g m e n ts § 813 ( “the courtin w hi ch the j udgm enti s r egi s t er ed maydet er m i ne w hethert he courtw h ich ent er ed the j udgm enthad j ur i s di ct i on overt he s ubj ectm at t erand par t i es ”)

. T hi s i s cert ai nl yt he vi ew t hathas been e xpr es sly em b r ace d bynear l yal l of ours i s t er 26 ci r cui t s t o have s quar el yconfr ont ed the ques t i on, and I thus c o n c u r w ith th e m a

jo rity ’s o p in io n in so f

a r a s it a d o p ts th is r e l a t i v e l yu n c o n t r o v e r s i a l p o s i t i o n a s T h i r d Ci r c u i tl a w. 27pow e ro n t h e p a r to f e n f o r c e me n tc o u r t s . Se e I n r e Uni ver s al D i s pl ay& Si gn C o. , 541 F. 2d 1 42, 143- 44 ( 3d C i r . 1976) ( aff i rm i ng r egi s t er i ng cour t ’ s deni al of R ul e 60( b) ( 4) r el i ef w h e re d e f

e n d a n ts liti g a ted iss u e o f p e rso n a l ju risd ictio n in r ender i ng cour t but l os t ) ; Som por t ex L t d. v. Phi l a. C h ew i ng G um C orp. , 453 F. 2d 435, 444 ( 3d C i r . 1972) ( aff i r m i ng deni al o f re lief f ro m E n g lish d e f

a u lt ju d g m e n t s o u g h t to b e e n f o rc e d in P enn sy l van i a w here defe nd ants had op po rtun i t y t o c o n test ju ri s d ic tio n in E n g lis h f o ru m ). T her e i s no ques t i on, of cour s e, t hatr egar dl es s of w hether 28 a re q u est fo r va ca tur i s lab eled as o n e p u rs u an t t o R u le 60 (b), cour t s pos s es s t he i nher ent pow er t o gr ant r el i ef i f the gr ounds of the r eques tot herw i s e s at i s fyt he r equi r ement s of an in d e p e n d e n t ac tio n in e q u ity

. S e e F e d

. R

. C iv

. P

. 6 0 (d ) (“ [ R u le 60] does notl i m i tt he pow erof a co u rtt o: ( 1) ent er t ai n an i ndepende nt act i on t o r el i eve a part yfr om a j udgm ent , or der , or pr ocee di ng; (2) g rantr el i ef unde r28 U

. S. C

. § 1655 t o a defe ndantnotactual l yper s onal l ynot i fi ed of the ac t i on; or( 3) 51 H ow ev er, t he opi ni on does nots t op t her e, butgoes f u rth e r to h o ld th a t re g iste rin g c o u rts m a ya lso c o n sid e r R u le 6 0 (b )(6 ) m o tio n s to v a c a te f o re ig n ju d g m e n ts u n d e r c e rta in

“ e x t r a o r d i n a r yc i r c u ms t a n c e s . ” He r e , I mu s t p a r twa y s wi t h my m aj or i t y col l eague s . W hi l e i ti s t rue thatt he pr eci s e cont our s of th e re g iste rin g c o u rt’s au th o rity to g ra n t R u le 6 0 (b ) re lief re m a in uns et t l ed, I am never t hel es s unaw ar e of an y cour tcons i der i ng t he ques t i on – befor e t oday– t hathas aff i rm ati vel ydecl ar ed s uch author i t yt o exi s tforanyR ul e 60( b) s ubs ect i on out s i de of th e (b )( 4 ) c o n te x t. S e e 1 1 C h a rl e s A . W ri g h t e t a l., F EDE RAL 28s e ta s i d e a j ud gmen t fo rf r a u d o n t h e c o u r t

. ” ) ; 1 2 J a me s W m. M o o re e t a l., M OORE ’ S F E D E RA L P RAC TI C E § 60. 60[3] [b] ( 3d ed. 1 9 9 7 ) ; 3 0 Am

. J u r . 2d Exe cut i ons and E nf or cem ent of J u d g m e n ts § 813 ( 1994) ( “[t ] he r egi s teri ng cour tm ay [] gr ant r el i ef f r om t he j udgm enti n an i ndepende ntequi t abl e ac t i on, par t i cul ar l yw her e s om e fr aud ordece pt i on w as pr act i ced on the r ender i ng cour t ”)

. I ndeed, num er ous cour t s , w hen enc ount er i ng R ul e 60( b) vacat u r re ques t s bas ed on al l egat i ons of fr aud, m i s t ake orexcus abl e negl ect , have c ons t rued them as i ndepende ntequi t able act i ons . E

. g. , W i nfi el d A s s ocs . , I nc. v. W

. L

. S t on eci ph er, 42 9 F

. 2d 10 87 , 10 90 (10t h C i r. 19 70 ) ( so co n st rui ng R ul e 60( b) m ot i on, t hus avoi di ng ques t i on of “w hetherR ul e 60(b) i s a prope r m eans of at t acki ng a j udgm ent ent e r e d b ya Uni t e d St a t e s Di s t r i c tCou r ts i t t i n g i n a n o t her s t at e”) ; H adden v. R um s eyPr oduct s , I nc. , 196 F. 2d 92, 95 ( 2d C ir

. 1 9 5 2 ) (sam e). T h u s, I w o u ld b e sa ti sfied if t h e h o lding h ere on t he R ul e 60(b) ( 6) “extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s ” ca t egoryof r el i ef i s expr es s l yl i m i t ed t o o n ly t hos e narr ow ci rcumst ance s t hatw oul d s up p o rt an i ndepende ntequi t abl e ac t i on. B ut , t he m a jo rity ’s v iew o f

a re g iste rin g c o u rt’s R u le 6 0 (b )(6 ) a u th o rity is n o t s o lim ite d

. I n anyevent, I not e thatno gr ounds t o s uppor tan ind ep en d en t equ it ab le ac ti o n ex isth ere , sinc e d ef en d an t’ s a f f id a v it m a k e s c lea r th a t h e r d e f a u lt w a s in ten tio n a l. A p p . v o l. 2 a t 5 6 , ¶ ¶ 1 5 -1 6 (a ttes tin g sh e d id n o t a p p e a r i n C a li f o r n ia act i on on advi ce of

couns el ) ; s ee 12 M OORE ’ S F EDE RAL P RA C TI C E § § 6 0 .8 1 -6 0 .8 2 (in d e p e n d e n t eq u itab le r e lief requ i res , in tera lia , t hatno ad eq u at e r emedyi s avai l abl e atl aw and that the j ud gm ent soug ht to b e v a c a ted is “ m a n if e stly 52unco n s c i o n a b l e ” ) ; s e e a l s o So mpo r t e x , 4 5 3 F. 2 d a t4 4 3 n . 13 ( s ugges t i ng col l at er al at t acks t o defa ul t j udgm ent s ar e al l ow ed in “lim it ed ” ins tanc es w h ere fra u d o r e x cu sab le ne g lect are in v o lv e d ). 53 P RAC TI C E & P R OC EDU R E § 2 7 8 7 , at 36 (2 d e d

. 1 9 9 5 ) (“th e c o u rts h a v e n o t sq u a re lyd e c id e d to w h a t e x te n t, i f a t all, th e c o u rt in w hi ch a j udgm enti s r egi s t er ed ca n gi ve r el i ef f r om t he j udgm ent underR ul e 60( b) ”) ; I ndi an H ead N at ’ l B ank of N as hua v. B runel l e, 689 F. 2d 245, 251 ( 1s tC i r . 1982) ( not i ng nei t hert he par t i es nort he courti t s el f coul d fi nd a si ngl e ca s e “w her e a c o u rt o f re g istra tio n w a s w ill in g to e n ter tain d ire c tlya R u le 60( b) m ot i on ot hert han one a t t acki ng a d efa ul tj udgm entfor lac k o f p e rso n a l j u r is d ic tio n ” ). In d e e d , the o n lyc o u rt d ire c tly c o n f r o n t i n g t h e i s s u e e x p r e s s l yh e l d t o t h e c o n t r a r y : “ [ A] r egi s t rat i on cour terr s i n ent er t ai ni ng a R ul e 60( b) m ot i on t hat al l eges nei t hera j udgm entvoi d forl ack of per s onal j ur i s di ct i on n o r g ro u n d s th a t w o u ld s u p p o r t an in d e p e n d e n t eq u itab le a c tio n .” B ru n e lle , 6 8 9 F .2 d a t 2 5 1 -5 2

.

T hi s is n o ts urpr i s i ng, i n l i ghtof the gene r al rul e that 

### notwi ths t andi ng the r

ul e ’ s s i l e nc e on the t opi c , a ppl i c at i ons for Rul e 60(b) r e l i e f m

us t ty pi c a l l y be m a de i n the c ourt r e nde ri ng th e j u d g m ent. S ee, e.g ., 1 2 Jam es Wm . M o o re et al., M OORE 

### ’ S 

### F ED ER A L 

### P RAC TI CE 

### § 6 0 .6 0 [ 1 ] (3 d ed

. 1 9 9 7 ) (alth o u g hth e ru le it se lf do es no t e xp re ss ly

so prov ide, “i t is cl ear that the dra fter s o f th e r u l e c o nt e m

p l at e dth at

th e m o t i o n. . . w oul d a lways be br ought ‘ i n the c ourt

an d i n the a c t i on i n whi c h the judgm e nt54 

### wa s r e nde r e d’ ” ) ( e m

pha s i s a dde d) ; 11 F ED ER A L 

### P RAC TI CE 

### & P ROC EDU RE 

### § 2865, at 377 ( Rul e 60(b) m ot i ons ge ne r a l l y m a de t o r e nde ri ng co u rt). W h ile th is d o e s n o t per se pr ecl ude one fr om chal l engi ng t he under l y i ng j udgm entupon r egi s t r at i on, r e g i s t e r i n g c o u r t s mos to f t e n d e n ys u c h c h a l l e n g e s wi t h o ut p re ju d ice , ref

e rrin g th e p a rties to lit ig a te th e R u le 6 0 (b ) iss u e in t he r ender i ng cour t

. See 11 F E D E RA L P RAC TI C E & P ROCEDURE § 2865, at378 ( “i ti s appr opr i at e fort he court in t he di s t r i ctof regi s t r at i on t o decl i ne t o pas s on t he m ot i on for [R ul e 6 0 (b)] r el i ef a nd t o r equi r e t he m ovi ng par t yt o pr ocee d i n t he courtt hat g ave j udgm ent ”) ; e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. Fl uorC orp. , 436 F. 2d 383, 384- 85 ( 2d C i r . 1970) ( aff i r m i ng r egi s t r at i on cour t ’ s deni al of R ul e 60( b) ( 5) m ot i on w i t houtpr ej udi ce)

. A nd r i ght l ys o. W i t h these w el l -s et t l ed legal pri ncipl es in m i nd , I think t he F i rs t C i r cui t ’ s hol di ng i n B run ell e bes tvi ndi cat es t he s i gni fi cant c o m ityin ter e sts im p lica ted in th e re g istra tio n c o n tex t w h ile adeq uatel ypreserving coll at eral aven ues of rel i ef fo r l i t i gan t s.

Fur t her m or e, even i f one agr ees w i t h t he s ubs t ance of the m aj or i t y ’ s l egal concl us i on – one thati s atodds w i t h t he B ru n e lle d e c is io n – th a t re g iste rin g c o u rts h a v e th e p o w e r to vaca t e for ei gn j udgm ent s under c e r t a i n u n s p e c i fi ed “extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s ” pur s uantt o R ul e 60( b) ( 6), t he ques t i o n r e ma i n s whe t h e rt h i s i s t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c a s e i n whi ch t o m ake s uch a pr ocl amat i on. T hi s i s es peci al l ys o w hen, not w i t hs t andi ng i t s arti cul at i on of a ne w rul e expa ndi ng t he bas es fo r w h ich col l at er al r el i ef maybe gr ant ed i n r egi s t r at i on pr ocee di ngs , t he major i t ynevert hel es s acknow l edges t hatno extr aord in a ry ci rcum st ances ex i sti n thi s case, i n an yeven t , soI n m yvi ew , t he r eas on w hyH ar ad v. A etna C as ual t yand 29 Sur etyC om pany , 8 3 9 F. 2d 979 ( 3d C i r . 1988) and Em cas co I ns ur ance C om panyv. Sam br i ck, 834 F. 2d 73 ( 3d C i r . 1987) do n o t ap p lytu r n s n o t o n th a t th e yw e re d e c id e d u n d e r R u le 60( b) ( 1) as oppos ed t o R ul e 60( b ) ( 6) , buts i m pl ybeca us e they bot h per t ai ned t o di r ect at t acks on defa ul t j udgm ent s ( w her e the m oti on s for r el i ef w ere m ade to t he rend eri ng cou rts t hemsel ves )

. Insofaras H ar ad and Em cas co r equi r e any cons i der at i on of t he under l y i ng m er i t s of the ac t i on, t heycannot di ct at e the governi ng s t an d ard forvaca turi n t he ca s e w her e a par t yi nt ent i onal l ydefaul t s and then s eeks t o vaca t e that ju d g m e n t in th e c o n te x t o f a re g is tr a tio n p ro c e e d in g . 55 a s to w a r r a n t a n y su c h re lief. It w o u ld se e m th e n , tha t a s at i s f a c t o r yr e s o l u t i o n c o u l d h a v e b e e n h a d h e r e wi t h o ut a d v a n c in g th e R u le 6 0 (b )(6 ) iss u e ; w e sh o u ld h a v e a c c o rd in g ly done s i m pl y t hi s . For m e, t hi s cas e begi ns and ends w i t h t he D istric t C o u rt’s v a c a tu r o f th e d e f a u lt j u d g m e n t in so f

a r a s its deci s i on w as bas ed i n any par t on i t s per cept i on of t he mer i t s of t he under l y i ng C al i forni a ac t i on. I ti s axi om at i c thatw hen a 29 par t ypurpos eful l yfai l s t o appea r i n an ac t i on on t he bas i s of the bel i ef thatt he fo rei gn t r i bunal l acks per s onal j ur i s di ct i on, s he w aives t he r i ghtt o l at ercont es tt he under l y i ng m er i t s of that act i on i n a col l at er al pr ocee di ng. E

. g. , E l i t e Ere ct or s , I nc. , 212 F .3 d a t 1 0 3 4 ; H a z e n R e s e a rc h , In c . v . O m e g a M in e ra ls , In c ., 497 F. 2d 151, 154 ( 5t h C i r . 1974) ( w her e “the defe ndantm akes no appea r ance and the j udgm ent goes by defa ul t , t he def endant m aydefe ats ubs equentenfor cementi n anotherforum by d e mon s t r a t i n g t h a tt h e j u d g me n ti s s u e d f r o m a c o u r tl a c k i ng p ers on al j uri sdi ct i on . . . [bu t ] s ho uld the att ack f ai l , t he d e f

a u lt56 ju d g m e n t b e c o m e s n o les s f in a l an d d e ter m in a tiv e o n th e m e rits of the con t rovers y t han a decree enter ed aft er ful l t ri al ”). T hu s, w h e n th e D istric t C o u rt c o n sid e re d th e m e rits o f th e C a lifo rn ia a c tio n b e lo w to o p in e th a t d e f e n d a n t “p o ss e ss e s a n e x tre m e ly m e rito rio u s d e f

e n se ” w a rra n ted v a c a tu r, A p p . v o l. 1 a t 7 , it m i s s ed th e fundament al di s t i nct i on betw een di r ectand col l at er al at t acks

. 18 M OORE ’ S F E D E RA L P RACTI CE § 1 30. 35[1] ( “r egi s t er i ng cour tcannotl ook i nt o the subs t ance of the j udgm entt o r eexa m i ne i t s val i di t y ”)

. A s t he R es tat ement cog entl yexp l ai ns:

[I ] ti s i nappr opri ate t o cons i dert he mer i t s of an a ttac k o n a ju d g m e n t w h e n th a t atta c k is m a d e in t he cour s e of a s ubs equentact ion i n w hi ch the j udgm enti s reli ed on as a bas i s of cl ai m or d e f e n se . T o c o n sid e r th e m e ri ts o f th e a ttac k in s uch a c ont exti s t o contr avene the gener al pr i nci pl e thatr el ief fr om a j udgm ents houl d be s o u g h t in th e c o u rt th a t r e n d e re d th e ju d g m e n t.

R ES TAT EMEN T (S EC ON D ) OF J UDGMENT S § 8 0 cm t. a ¶ 2 (19 8 2 ).

A cc o rdin g ly, al tho u g h I co n cu r w ith the m ajority ’s u lti m a te d isp o sitio n o f

th e c a se , I re sp e c tf

u llyd iss e n t f

ro m its pr onouncement s on t h e g ener al avai l abi l i t yof R ul e 60( b) ( 6) re lief. U n d e r th e p a rticu lar c irc u m sta n c e s h e re , I w o u ld h o ld57 t hata r egi s t r at i on cour t err s w hen i t vaca t es a for ei gn j udgm ent o n g ro u n d s o th e r th a n th o se o f v o id n e ss o r w h ich w o u ld other w i se suppo rtan indep end ent equi t able act i on . T he F ull F a ith a n d C re d it C lau se a n d th e w e ig h tyin ter e sts o f c o m ity d e m a n d n o th in g le s s .