Opinion ID: 405227
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of the Motion for Relief from Judgment

Text: 165 Bunch also claims that relief from judgment is required under Rule 60(b)(3) for fraud ..., misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party .... We are referred to Rozier v. Ford Motor Co., 573 F.2d 1332 (5th Cir. 1978) in support of this claim. Bunch's reliance is misplaced. 166 Rozier states that in order to bring a successful claim under Rule 60(b)(3) a party must: 167 (1) prove by clear and convincing evidence that the verdict was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct. 168 (2) establish that the conduct complained of prevented the losing party from fully and fairly presenting his case or defense. Although when the case involves the withholding of information called for by discovery, the party need not establish that the result in the case would be altered. 169 Id. at 1339. 170 Rozier also states that the judge's decision on a Rule 60(b)(3) motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 1346. In the matter before us, Bunch has offered no evidence that the verdict was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct. The record also reflects that Bunch had a full and fair opportunity to present his case. It was clear that the government maintained throughout the pretrial proceedings and the trial that Bunch would be unable to prove age was the determining factor in Casson's selection. Moreover, Bunch was permitted to use the alleged prior inconsistent statements to attempt to impeach Lingelbach and Turner. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Bunch's motion for relief from judgment based on Rule 60(b)(3). 171