Opinion ID: 1560416
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendants' Cross-Appeals

Text: The defendants cross-appeal from the granting of plaintiffs motion to vacate judgment, arguing that plaintiff failed to demonstrate any extraordinary, unique, or unusual circumstances that would justify relief from the judgment of dismissal under Rule 60(b)(6). We agree with defendants that Rule 60(b)(6) was not intended to constitute a `catchall' and    that `circumstances must be extraordinary to justify relief.' Bailey v. Algonquin Gas Transmission Co., 788 A.2d 478, 483 (R.I.2002) (quoting Bendix Corp. v. Norberg, 122 R.I. 155, 158, 404 A.2d 505, 506 (1979)). As we previously noted in our order remanding the case to the Superior Court, however, an order granting a motion to vacate is interlocutory and not appealable. Moreover, we are convinced, as was the trial justice, that the loss of plaintiffs primary expert witness at the eleventh hour indeed created extraordinary circumstances warranting the vacation of the judgment of dismissal.