FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 04 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 8- cv -0 20 62 -J DW -AEP FEDERAL TRADE COMMISS ION, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us RCA CR EDIT SERVICES, LLC, a Fl or id a co rp or at io n, etal., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt , RICK LEE CROSB Y, JR., in di vi du al ly andas a n o ffi cer o r m an ag er o f Defen da nt , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll D efen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 14 , 20 11 )Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM: Ri ckLee Cro sb y , Jr., ap pe ari ng pr o s e , app eal s the di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l o r to alt er o r am en d the jud gm en t as un ti m el y un de r Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 5 9( b) , (e). On app eal , Cro sb y ass ert s tha t h is Ru le 59 m ot io n was ti m el y , bu t h is arg um en t o nl y ad dr es se s the m eri ts of t he
m ot io n. Fo r th e rea so ns setforth be lo w, we affi rm th e d en ia l o f Cro sb y ’s Rul e 5 9
m ot io n a s unt im el y . I. The Fed eral Trad e Co m

m is si on(“ FTC”) f

il eda co m

pl ai ntun de r th e Fed eral Trad e Co m

m is si on Act, 1 5 U.S.C. § 45 (a), an d the Cred itRep ai r Org an iz at io ns Act, 1 5 U.S.C. § 16 79 et

seq . , aga in stRCA Cre di t Se rv ic es , LLC; Cro sb y , in di vi du al ly andas a n o ffi cer o r m an ag er o f RCA; an d B rady W el li ng to n, in di vi du al ly andas a n o ffi cer o r m an ag er o f RCA. The di st ric t co urt u lt im at el y en te reda fi na l am en de d ju dg m en t an d p erm an en t i njunc ti onag ai ns t Cr os by onall
co un ts of t he co m

pl ai ntonOcto be r 15 , 20 10 . Cro sb y fil eda m ot io n fo r a n ew tri al or t o a lt er o r am en d the jud gm en t und er Fe de ral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 5 9
on Nov em

be r 16 , 20 10
. The di stric t co urt d en ie d the m ot io n a s unt im el y . The co urt fo un d tha t t o 2co m

pl y with R ul e 5 9’s t im e li m it s, Cr os by woul d h av e h adto fil e h is m ot io n b y Nov em be r 12 , 20 10 , andun de r Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 6 (b )(2 ), th e co urt
co ul d n otex te ndRu le 59 ’s 28 -d ay de ad li ne . Cro sb y fil eda no ti ce o f ap pe al onJanua ry 3, 2 01 1, i nd ic at in g tha t h e was ap pe al in g b ot h the jud gm en t an d the de ni al of h is Ru le 59 m ot io n. We su a s po nt e di sm is se d C ro sb y ’s app eal of t he am en de d fi na l ju dg m en t an d p erm an en t in jun ct io n b ecau se th e n ot ic e o f ap pe al was u nt im el y as t o the jud gm en t. We al lo wedCro sb y ’s app eal of t he de ni al of h is Ru le 59 m ot io n t o p ro ceedbe cau se he ti m el y ap pe al edth e d en ia l o f th is m ot io n. II. W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f a Ru le 59 m ot io n fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Mays v. U.S. Pos ta l S erv. , 12 2 F .3d43 , 46 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). App lying
anin co rrec t l eg al st an da rdor i nc orrect ly app lying th e la w is anab us e o f di sc ret io n. Klayv. Huma na , Inc
. , 38 2 F .3d12 41 , 12 51 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). A
m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l o r to alt er o r am en d ajud gm en t “ m us t b e fi le d n o l at er tha n 28 day s af

te r th e en try of the jud gm en t.” Fe d.R .Civ .P. 59 (b ), (e). A di st ric t co urt

“ m us t n otex te ndth e ti m e” t o fi le a Ru le 59 m ot io n. Fe d.R .Civ .P. 6(b )(2 ). The di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g C ro sb y ’s Rul e 5 9
m ot io n a s unt im el y . The fi na l ju dg m en t i n thi s ca se was e nt eredOcto be r 15 , 320 10 . Und er Ru le 59 (b ), (e), Cr os by hadto fil e a m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l o r to alt er

oram en d the jud gm en t b y Nov em be r 12 , 20 10 —tha t i s, 2 8 d ay s af te r th e en try of th e jud gm en t. Se e Fed .R.Ci v.P . 59 (b ), (e). Cro sb y fil edhi s R

ul e 5 9 m ot io n fo ur da y s af te r th is de ad li ne , onNov em be r 16 , 20 10 . The d is tri ctco urt ap pl ie d the
co rrec t l eg al st an da rd s t o d et erm in e th atCro sb y ’s m ot io n was un ti m el y an d t o de te rm in e th atitco ul d n otex te ndth e d ead li ne un de r Ru le 6(b )(2 ). Se e Klay , 38 2 F.3 d a t 1 25 1; Fed .R.Ci v.P . 6(b )(2 ). Ther efo re, the co urt d idno t ab us e it s di sc ret io n i n d en y in g C ro sb y ’s Rul e 5 9 m ot io n a s u nt im el y , andwe do no t ad dr es s th e m eri ts of C ro sb y ’s m ot io n. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm th e d en ia l o f Cro sb y ’s Rul e 5 9 m ot io n. AFFIRMED.

4