Opinion ID: 685164
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Any Other Reason--60(b)(6)

Text: 48 Atkinson argues that the catch-all provision in Rule 60(b)(6) requires vacating the judgment in the interests of justice. Atkinson alleges that the district court's grant of summary judgment, in which the court concluded that there was no writing that complied with the requirements of Minnesota law, is now being used in a proceeding before the Minnesota Department of Commerce to suspend his real estate license. Given the importance of such a license to his business, Atkinson argues, the court should allow the letter to be admitted. Doing so, he argues, would remove some of the stigma associated with the district court's determination that he had failed to comply with Minn.Stat. Sec. 82.33. 49 This is not the type of exceptional circumstance that Rule 60(b)(6) was intended to cover. Relief is available under Rule 60(b)(6) only where exceptional circumstances prevented the moving party from seeking redress through the usual channels. In re Zimmerman, 869 F.2d 1126, 1128 (8th Cir.1989). Atkinson cites no cases supporting his argument that he is entitled to relief because a judgment led to a proceeding to revoke his license. Exceptional circumstances are not present every time a party is subject to potentially unfavorable consequences as a result of an adverse judgment properly arrived at. Rather, exceptional circumstances are relevant only where they bar adequate redress. As noted above, Atkinson had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claim. The district court properly found that he had failed to comply with Minn.Stat. Sec. 82.33, and the newly-discovered letter does not disturb that finding. Accordingly, Atkinson is not entitled to relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6). 6