2006 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 10-3-2006 

# C olor P lu s Le athe r v

. V inc ie P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-2925

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " C o lor P lus L e athe r v

. V inc ie " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 372. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/372NOT P 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 N os . 04- 2925 and 04- 2927 C O L O R -P L U S L E A T H E R R E S T O R A T IO N S Y S T E M , L .L .C ., A ppel l ant v. CA RO L A. VI NC I E ; NE W ER A C ONS UL T I NG; CO LOR TEC; CD W ; CY BER TECH NO LOG I ES A p p ea ls from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N os . 02- cv- 01570 and 03- cv- 01492) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ames M . M unl ey Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember25, 2006 B efor e: R E N D E L L , C H A G A R E S and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: O ct ober3, 2006 ) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJudge . C ol or - Pl us L eatherR es t or at i on Sy s t em L L C ( C ol or - Pl us ) appea l s fr om the D i s tr i ct C o u rt ’s N o v em b er 1 8 , 2 0 0 3 O rde r de n y ing it s R u le 60 (b) M o ti o n an d the D istri ct C o u rt ’sO urj ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew thi s or derar i s es under28 U . S. C . § 1291; ourr evi ew of a 1 di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of m ot i ons pur s uantt o Fed. R . C i v. P. 60( b) i s an abus e of d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd , B o h u s v . B e lo ff , 950 F. 2d 919, 930 ( 3d C i r . 1991) , and r evi ew of di s m i s s al s of cl ai m s pur s uantt o both R ul e 41( b) of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e and the comm on l aw doctr i ne of re s ju d ica ta is p le n a ry, O’ L e a r y v . L i b e r t

y Mu t . I n s . Co ., 9 2 3 F . 2 d 1 0 6 2 , 1 0 6 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). 2 Jan u ary2 0 , 2 0 0 4 O rde r dism issi n g C o lor-P lus’ sec o n d co m p lai n t. T h e D istri ct C o u rt 1 concl uded, i n a thor ough and w el l - r eas oned opi ni on, thatthe courtpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed C o lo r-P lu s’ s e c o n d c o m p lain t b a se d o n R u le 4 1 (b ) o f th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

C iv il Pr ocedur e and the comm on l aw doctr i ne of re s ju d ica ta . T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o deni ed C ol or - Pl us ’ M ot i on forR econs i der at i on of the D eni al of i t s R ul e 60 M ot i on. W e agr ee a n d w ill a f

f ir m . I. C o lor-P lus f

il ed a C o m p lai n t al legin g b rea ch o f c o n tr ac t aga inst N ew E ra C ons ul t i ng, C ar ol A . V i nci e, C ol or t ec, C . D . W . , and C yberT echnol ogi es on Sept ember5, 2 0 0 2 . O n A u g u st 7 , 2 0 0 3 th e D istric t C o u rt su a sp o n te d ism iss e d th e c a se f o r f a ilu re to p rose cu te. C o lor-P lus the n fil ed a se co n d co m p lai n t i d en ti ca l t o the o n e the D istri ct C o u rt h a d d is m is s e d . I n addi t i on, C ol or - Pl us fi l ed a M ot i on forR el i ef f r om J udgm entpur s uant t o R ul e 60 of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed i n a N ovember18, 2003 O r der . R el y i ng on the comm on l aw pr i nci pl e of re s ju d ica ta , CD W th e n f iled a m o tio n to d ism iss th e se c o n d c o m p lain t. T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed the m o tio n to d is m is s o n J a n u a ry 2 0 , 2 0 0 4 .3 II. A . D e ni alof

R ul e 60 ( b) M ot i on C ol or - Pl us appea l s the N ovember18, 2003 O r derdeny i ng Pl ai nt i ff’ s R el i ef f r om J udgm entpur s uantt o R ul e 60( b) of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e. C ol or - Pl us b a se s th is a rg u m e n t o n th e D istric t C o u rt’s d ism iss a l o f its in iti a l co m p lain t f

o r f a ilu re to p ro s e c u te . T h is a rg u m e n t is s im p ly m is p la c e d . C olor -Pl us i m properl yargues the m eri t s of the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s dis m i ssal of it s fi rs t compl ai nt , as oppos ed t o t he deni al of i t s R ul e 60( b) M ot i on. A s the D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed, “R ul e 60( b) i s nota s ubs t i tut e foran appe al . ” P age v. Schw ei ker , 786 F. 2d 150, 154 ( 3d C i r . 1986) . A ddr es s i ng the r el at i ons hi p betw een the ac tof appe al i ng and s eeki ng r el i ef u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b ), w e h a v e sta ted th a t “it is im p ro p e r to g ra n t re lief u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b )(6 ) if the aggr i eved pa r tycoul d have r eas onabl ys oughtthe s ame r el i ef bym eans of appe al . ” Mar t i nez - McBean v. G ov’ tof the Vi r gi n I s lands , 5 6 2 F .2 d 9 0 8 , 9 1 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 7 7 ). C o lo r-P lu s c a n n o t se e k re lief u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b )(6 ) b e c a u se it co u ld h a v e re a so n a b ly s oughtr el i ef i n a t i m el yappea l fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of C ol or - Pl us ’ or i gi nal c o m p lain t o n A u g u st 7 , 2 0 0 3 . C o lo r-P lu s w a iv e d its rig h t to a p p e a l w h e n it fa iled to f ile a n a p p e a l w ith in th ir ty d a y s o f th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s O rd e r. F ED . R . A PP . P . 4 (a )( 1 )( A ). “R ul e 60( b) pr ovi des forextr aor di naryr el i ef a nd m ayonl ybe i nvoked upon a s how i ng of exc ept i onal ci r cumst ance s . ” V e c c h io n e v . W

o h lg e m u th , 558 F. 2d 150, 159 ( 3d C i r . 1977) ( ci t i ng Mayber r y v. Mar oney , 5 2 9 F .2 d 3 3 2 , 3 3 5 (3 d C ir. 1 9 7 6 )). A p a rty4

s eeki ng r el i ef unde rR ul e 60( b) m us tcl ear l yas s ertthe gr ounds fors uch r el i ef. C ol or - Pl us f a iled to a ss e rt a n ye x c e p tio n a l circ u m sta n c e s w h ich w o u ld w a rra n t re lief u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b ). Its b rie f

a lto g e th e r f

a ils to e v e n c h a llen g e th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f th e R u le 60( b) m ot i on. W h e n C o lo r-P lu s f a iled to ra ise th e se iss u e s in a n a p p e a l itw a iv e d its a b ility to s e e k re lie f

o n th e s a m e g ro u n d s , w h ile u s in g R u le 6 0 (b ) a s its v e h ic le to d o s o . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng C ol or - Pl us ’ m ot i on. B. D i s m i s s alof

Se c ond Com pl ai nt O n appea l , C ol or - Pl us ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n appl y i ng re s ju d ica ta to d is m is s its s e c o n d c o m p la in t, b e c a u s e th e f ir s t c a s e h a d n o t b e e n d e c id e d o n th e m e ri ts . A s the D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed, the doctr i ne of re s ju d ica ta b a r s a s u i ti n v o l v i n g th e s a me cl ai m s and the s ame par t i es w her e ther e i s : “( 1) a fi nal j udgm enton the mer i t s i n a pr i or s ui ti nvol vi ng ( 2) the s ame par t i es orthei rpr i vi es and ( 3) a s ubs equents ui tbas ed on the s ame caus es of ac t i on. ” A ra b A fric a n In t’l. B a n k

v . E p ste in , 1 0 F . 3 d 1 6 8 , 1 7 1 (3d C ir . 1993) . C ol or - Pl us ’ ar gum entr es t s on the bel i ef thatthe su a sp o n te dis m i ssal of it s fi rs t compl ai ntpur s uantt o R ul e 41( b) of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e di d notactas “a f in a l ju d g m e n t o n th e m e ri ts .” A gain, C olor -Pl us i s r eal l ychall eng i ng the m eri t s of t he d i sm i ssal of it s fi rs t compl ai nt . C ol or - Pl us ar gues thatthe di s m i s s al w as not“on the mer i t s ” bec aus e the D istri ct C o u rtfa il ed to ad d ress the fa ctors f o r su a sp o n te di s m i s s al s etfor th i n P oul is v. S ta t e Fa r m Fi r e & Ca s . Co ., 747 F. 2d 863, 867- 68 ( 3d C i r . 1987) . I f C ol or - Pl us5

di s agr eed w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of the compl ai ntdue t o the purpor t ed nonappl i cat i on of the P ou l is fac t or s , then C ol or - Pl us s houl d have appeal ed s uch or der . I n t he abs ence of an a ppeal , the P ou l is fac t or s have no be ar i ng on the ef fec tof the su a sp o n te d ism iss a l. B e c a u se R u le 4 1 (b ) o f th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

C iv il P ro c e d u re p ro v id e s th a t a su a sp o n te d ism iss a l “o p e ra tes a s a n a d ju d ica tio n o f

th e m e rits,” C o lo r-P lu s w a iv e d its abi l i tyt o chal l enge the di s m i s s al of the fi r s tcompl ai ntw hen i tfai l ed t o appea l s uch m o tio n in a tim e ly m a n n e r. III . Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ydeni ed the R ul e 60( b) M ot i on and appr opr i at el yappl i ed the comm on l aw pr i nci pl e of re s ju d ica ta to di s m i s s the s econd c om pl ai nt . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m the or der s of the D i s tr i ct C o u rt.