Opinion ID: 443240
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: E. Four is a Connecticut Corporation which does all its business in Australia

Text: 6 Mr. Holman is a loan officer with Aetna. He is a Connecticut resident whose activities in Texas were strictly in the course of his employment with Aetna 7 Of course, a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 is the proper method of testing the legal sufficiency of the complaint. In appraising the sufficiency of the complaint we follow, of course, the accepted rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957) 8 As an example, if we granted the relief requested by Crutcher, rescinding and cancelling the receivership, Camballin Farms would be placed in the position of being declared free of the receivership by an American court and remaining subject to the receivership under Australian law. Besides presenting an international conflict between the courts of Australia and the United States, this would certainly place a cloud on the status of the receivership 9 Paragraph Four of the Answer admits that a loan was made to Camballin Farms on or about May 22, 1980 ... but would show that, as a direct result of delays in funding such loan, Camballin Farms and defendant suffered substantial losses and damage. 10 Crutcher was personally informed that judgment had been taken against him when his deposition was taken by Aetna in an attempt to satisfy its judgment. This deposition was held within a few weeks of the district court having granted judgment. It appears that this was well within the time for Crutcher to have appealed the judgment rather than pursuing relief under Rule 60(b). It is, of course, Crutcher's contention that he relied on his original counsel's statement that he had no good defense and so did not appeal. Subsection (6) of Rule 60(b) is not a basis for relief in this case. As we noted in United States v. O'Neil, 709 F.2d 361, 373 n. 12 (5th Cir.1983), [t]he broad power granted by clause (6) is not for the purpose of relieving a party from free, calculated, and deliberate choices he has made. A party remains under a duty to take legal steps to protect his interests. In particular, it ordinarily is not permissible to use this motion to remedy a failure to take an appeal. (Quoting 11 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 2864 at 214-15) (footnotes omitted). Professor Moore is also in agreement. See 7 Moore's Federal Practice p 60.27 at 348 11 Judgment was taken in November of 1982. In January Crutcher's new counsel entered the case. In August the Rule 60 motion was filed 12 See also Wilson v. Thompson, 638 F.2d 801 (5th Cir.1981) 13 The late funding defense was expressly raised in paragraph 4 of Crutcher's answer to Aetna's complaint filed in the guarantee suit