08
- 14 91
- cv

P rim e 4 V e n tur e s, In c . v. C re a tive C o n c e p ts o f A m e ric a , In c .

UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS

F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T 

## SUMMARY ORD ER RUL I NGS B Y S UM M ARY ORDE R DO NOT HAV E P RE CE DE NT I AL E F F E CT . C I T AT I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORDE R F I L E D ON OR AF T E R JANUARY 1, 2007, I S P E RM I T T E D AND I S GO VE RNE D B Y F EDER A L R U LE O F A PP ELLATE P R OC EDU R E 32.1 A N D T HI S COU RT ’ S L OC A L RU LE 32.1.1. W HE N CI T I NG A S UM M ARY O RDE R I N A D OCUMENT F I L E D WI T H T HI S COU RT , A P ART Y MUS T CI T E E I T HE R T HE F EDER A L A PP END I X OR A N ELECTR ON I C DA TABA SE ( W I T H T HE NOT AT I ON “ SUM M A R Y OR D ER ”). A P A R TY C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y ORDE R MUS T S E RVE A C OPY O F I T ON AN Y P A R TY N OT R EP R ESENTED BY C OU N SEL . At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 25 day

of January , two thousand ten. th P R E S EN T : P IE RR E N
. LE V A L,

P E T E R W
. H A LL, DEB RA ANN L IVI

NGSTON, Circ uit J ud ge s.

_______________________________________________________ Prime 4 Venture s, Inc., Plaintif f-Appellant , v. No. 08-1491-c v Creative Conc epts of Amer ica, Inc., Defendant- Appellee , Red Bull, Inc., Red B ull of North Amer ica, Inc., De fe nd an ts .

________________________________________________________ F or Ap pe lla nt: E UGENE F. H A BER (M EL ANI E I. W I ENER , on the brief ), Cob e rt , Habe r & Habe r, Ga

rden City , N.Y. F or Ap pe lle e s: I N A B SE N T IAPrime 4’s appe al with respe ct to Red Bull ende d when we g rante d Red Bull’s motion 1 for summary

aff irmance in a J uly

23, 2009 order
.

2 Appea l from the Mar ch 6, 2008, judg ment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ne w York ( Kaplan, J. ), dismissing the ac tion as to Defe ndant-Appe llee pursuant to Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 4(m), a nd the district court’s Ma rch 28, 2008, or der de nyingPla int if

f- Ap pe lla nt’ s mo tio n f

or re lie f f ro m ju dg me nt u

nd e r F e de ra l Ru le of

Civ il Procedur e 60(b) (2) a

nd (6). UP ON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, AD JU DG ED , A ND DE CREED that th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRMED. Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt P ri me 4 V e ntu

re s, Inc . ( “ Pr ime 4” ) a

pp e a ls f ro m an o rd e r o f t

he U. S. District Court for the Southern D istrict of NewYork de nying its motion for re lief fr om judgment pursuant to Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 60(b) (2) a nd (6). We re view a district c ourt’s denia l of a motion to vacate a judg ment under Rule 60( b) for abuse of discretion. Ruotolo v. City of Ne w York, 514 F.3d 184, 191 ( 2d Cir. 2008). We assume the pa rties’ fa miliarity with the fac tual
and pr oc e dura l hi sto ry

of thi s c a se and

wi th t he iss ue s r a ise d o n a

pp e a l. In 2007, Prime 4 instituted this action ag ainst Creative Conce pts of Americ a, Inc. (“Cre ative Conce pts”) and Re d Bull, Inc. (“ Red Bull”) in the New Y ork Supreme Court, Ne w York County , alleg ing, inte r a lia , brea ch of c ontrac t. Prime 4 contends that it timely serve d 1 both defe ndants in acc ordanc e with New York state la

w. There afte r, Red B ull filed a notice of remova l with the U.S. District Court for the Southe rn Di str ic t of

Ne w Y or k. On c e in d istri c t c ourt , Re d B ull fi le d a Rul e 12 (b )( 6) mot ion

to dismiss Prime 4’s amende d complaint for f ailure to state a

claim. In its order grantingRed Bull’s motion, the dist rict cour

t also ruled that “[a]s more than 120 day s have pa ssed since the3

commence ment of the a ction and no proof of ser vice on [Creative Conce pts] has bee n filed, the
a c tio n is dis mis se d a s to [Cre ativ e Con c e pts ] wit ho ut p re jud ic e a s to that de fe nd ant p ur su ant t o Fe d. R. Civ. P . 4(m).” U pon dismiss al of the c omplaint, Prim e 4 moved f or re lief fr om judgment under Rule 60(b)(2) and (6) . In that motion, P rime 4 explained its basis for contendingthat the claims ag ainst Red Bull should not have be en dismissed, but it di d not argue that the c ourt’s imposit ion of Rule 4(m) wa s in error . The district cour t denied Prime 4’s motion without oral
argume nt. Prime 4 now contends that, at the time the district court hea rd the motion to dismi ss, the
c ourt did have pr oo f t

ha t Pr ime 4 h a d p ro pe rl y

se rv e d Cr e ativ e Con c e pts in t he Ne w Y or

k s tate proce eding s. I t claims that Red Bull had attached c opies of the f iled aff idavits of service
cover ing both Red B ull and Creative Conc epts as Exhibi t “B ” to the notice of remova l that was filed in the district court. That contention is incorre ct, howeve r, bec ause only the af fidavit of
se rv ic e wi th r e sp e c t to Re d B ull wa s atta c he d to theno tic e of re mov a l. Prime 4 also includes the Ne w York state aff idavit of servic e on Creative Concepts in the
a pp e llate re c or d th at is be fo re us , b ut i t pr of fe rs no e vid e nc e that th is a ff ida vit wa s p re se nte d to the dis tr ic t c ourt

at any tim e be fo re it f

ile d it s mo tio n f

or re c on sid e ratio n. B e c a

us e Pr ime 4 d id
no t de mon str ate to t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

that it ha d p ro pe rl y

se rv e d Cr e ativ e Con c e pts , a nd be c a us e Pr ime 4 f a ile d to argue in i ts R

ule 60 (b ) m oti on

that th e c ourt

e rr e d in dis mis sin gthe su it a g a ins t Creative Conc epts based upon Rule 4( m), Prime 4 has for feited its opportunity to challeng e the dismiss al. See, e .g. , United States v. Quinone s , 511 F.3d 289, 321 n.21 ( 2d Cir. 2007) (noting that “ the fa ilure tim e ly

to a sse rt a c la im r e su lts
. . . in

[a] f or fe iture of

that c la im” ); Hamilton v. Atlas Tur ner, Inc
. , 197 F.3d 58, 61- 62 (2d Cir. 1999) (holdingthat defe ndant forf eited lac k ofWe note notwithstanding that ora l argument befor e this Court was sche duled for 2 Dec ember

10, 2009 and notice the reof was sent to Prime 4, it opted not to appea r for oral argume nt. In s o d oin g , Pr ime 4 g ave up its op po rt un ity to e xpla in why

it h a d n ot f

or fe ite d it s ri g ht t o c ha lle ng e the dis mis sa l. 4 persona l jurisdiction defense by failingto contest persona l jurisdiction “despite sever al clea r opportunities to do so.”). 2 CO NC LU SION F or the re a so ns state d a

bo ve , th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED
.

F OR TH E CO UR T: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk