Opinion ID: 3015863
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Motion Made Pursuant to 60(b)(6)8

Text: Rule 60(b)(6) is the catch-all provision of 60(b). It states that relief can be provided from an order “for any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment” not before mentioned. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). “Legal error does not by itself warrant the application of Rule 60(b). . . . . Since legal error can usually be corrected on appeal, that factor without more does not justify the granting of relief under Rule 60(b)(6).” Martinez-McBean v. Gov’t of Virgin Islands, 562 F.2d 908, 912 (3d Cir. 1977). We have “consistently held that the Rule 60(b)(6) ground for relief from judgment provides for extraordinary relief and may only be invoked upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.” In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 840 F.2d 188, 194 (3d Cir. 1988) (internal quotations omitted). Chusid maintains that the instant situation constitutes exceptional circumstances because the Texas Court approved the settlement between the Receiver and Construction Drilling without giving him an opportunity to be heard. And in so doing, it usurped the 8 While it is somewhat unclear whether both components of Chusid’s motion is based on 60(b)(6), we are presuming from the arguments made that Chusid justifies only the stay of the Texas Order on the basis of 60(b)(6). 8 power of the New Jersey Court.9 We disagree. The New Jersey Court apparently recognized that the Texas Order conflicted with the New Jersey Court’s partial denial of summary judgment. However, the New Jersey Court viewed the Texas Order not as an usurption of power, but rather as a settlement between the Receiver and Construction Drilling. Moreover, the Receiver was given vast powers in the Texas action to marshal assets and Chusid offers no evidence that the Receiver exceeded the scope of his power by entering into such a settlement or that the Texas Court was required to consult with him under its local rules. Because Chusid has not established a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law or an improper application of law to fact, there is no reason to find that the New Jersey Court abused its discretion by denying the motion for stay pursuant to 60(b)(6).