Court Opinion

ID: 2963445
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:09:50.379722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:41.392294
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          June 5, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1161 

                                  YASAMIN PAKIZEGI,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                            FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Yasamin Pakizegi on brief pro se.
            ________________
            Robert B. Gordon, Richard  P. Ward and  Ropes & Gray on brief  for
            ________________  ________________      ____________
        appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.   Appellant  Yasamin  Pakizegi appeals
                      ___________

            from  the denial of her motion for relief from judgment filed

            under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3).

                      "[T]he  treatment  of   a  Rule  60(b)   motion  is

            committed  to the discretion of the district court and may be

            reversed only upon a finding of an abuse of that discretion."

            Ojeda-Toro v. Rivera-Mendez, 853 F.2d 25, 28 (1st Cir. 1988).
            __________    _____________

            We  find an abuse of  discretion if we  become convinced that

            "the court below committed  a clear error of judgment  in the

            conclusion it reached  upon a  weighing of  all the  relevant

            factors."  United  States v. Boch Oldsmobile, Inc.,  909 F.2d
                       ______________    _____________________

            657, 660 (1st Cir. 1990).  Finally, our review is confined to

            the denial  of the  Rule 60(b)  motion; we do  not treat  the

            merits of the  underlying judgment.  Ojeda-Toro,  853 F.2d at
                                                 __________

            28.

                      Rule  60(b)(3)  allows  relief  from  judgment  for

            "fraud   (whether   heretofore   denominated   intrinsic   or

            extrinsic),  misrepresentation,  or  other misconduct  of  an

            adverse  party."    Appellant  alleges  that  appellee  First

            National   Bank  of   Boston  (the   "Bank")  made   numerous

            misrepresentations of fact in its motion for summary judgment

            on appellant's  claim that  her  employment at  the Bank  was

            terminated   based  on  her   national  origin  (Iranian)  in

            violation of  Title VII of the  Civil Rights Act  of 1964, 42

            U.S.C.    2000e  et seq.   To  prevail on  her Rule  60(b)(3)
                             __ ____

            motion,    appellant   must    show   that    these   alleged

            misrepresentations  prevented  her  from  "fully  and fairly"

            presenting her defense  to the summary judgment  motion.  See
                                                                      ___

            In  re M/V Peacock, 809  F.2d 1403, 1404-05  (9th Cir. 1987).
            __________________

            Misrepresentations can have this effect only when a party did

            not  have knowledge of the alleged  inaccuracies or access to

            information which  could have  resulted in this  knowledge at

            the  time of the alleged misconduct.  Ojeda-Toro, 853 F.2d at
                                                  __________

            29.

                      In  support  of  her   claim  that  the  Bank  made

            misrepresentations  of  fact   in  the  motion   for  summary

            judgment, appellant points to  the documents submitted by the

            Bank in support of the motion and the documents she submitted

            in opposition to the  motion.  Indeed, appellant specifically

            states  in her brief on  appeal that she  brought the alleged

            misrepresentations to  the  attention of  the district  court

            prior to its grant of summary judgment.
            ________

                      "Even  where misrepresentations  are made  during a

            litigation, it is not  an abuse of discretion to  deny relief

            to  the losing party under Rule 60(b)(3), where the party had

            access  to accurate  information."   7 J.  Moore &  J. Lucas,

            Moore's Federal  Practice    60.24[5],  at 90  (2d ed.  Supp.
            _________________________

            1994-95)  (footnote omitted).   Because appellant already had

            presented  her position to the district  court, we cannot say

            that  the  Bank's supposed  misrepresentations  prevented her

                                         -3-

            from  fully presenting her case.   See In re M/V Peacock, 809
                                               ___ _________________

            F.2d at 1405.  Thus,  the court did not abuse  its discretion

            in determining  that appellant could  not rely on  the Bank's

            alleged fraud as a reason for relief from judgment under Rule

            60(b)(3).  We  therefore need not reach  the question whether

            appellant's  Rule   60(b)(3)  motion   was  filed   within  a

            reasonable time.

                      The judgment of the  district court is affirmed and
                                                             ________

            appellant's request for oral argument is denied.
                                                     ______

                                         -4-