Ahron v. Yedioth Israel, Inc. ( 1997 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________


        No. 96-2281

                                  BEN-TOVIM, AHARON,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                YEDIOTH ISRAEL, INC.,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Nancy J. Gertner, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
_____________
                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
_____________

                                 ____________________

        Ben-Tovim, Aharon on brief pro se.
_________________
        Frances  S. Cohen, Anne  L. Showalter and  Hill & Barlow  on brief for
_________________  __________________      _____________
        appellee, Yedioth Ahronoth, Ltd.


                                 ____________________

                                    July 18, 1997
                                 ____________________



















                      Per Curiam.   Plaintiff-appellant  Ben-Tovim Aharom
__________

            appeals pro  se from the  denial of a postjudgment  motion to
___  __

            vacate a forum non conveniens dismissal.  We affirm.
_____ ___ __________

                      Although the motion  to vacate did not  cite to any

            rule (or other authority for bringing a collateral  attack on

            the judgment),  we construe it  as a Rule 60(b)  motion.  The

            motion   was   predicated   on   alleged   newly   discovered

            misrepresentations  by   defendant  Yedioth   Ahronoth,  Ltd.

            However,  Aharon  could  not  challenge  the  judgment  under

            60(b)(2)  (newly discovered evidence)  or 60(b)(3)  (fraud or

            misrepresentation)  because, under the terms of the rule, any

            such motion must  be made within one year  after the entry of

            judgment.   Baltia Air Lines, Inc. v. Transaction Management,
______________________    _______________________

            Inc.,  98  F.3d  640,  642  (D.C.  Cir.  1996);  Gonzalez  v.
____                                             ________

            Walgreens  Co., 918  F.2d  303,  305 (1st  Cir.  1990).   The
______________

            judgment of  dismissal was entered  on April 3, 1995  and the

            current action was filed on June 24, 1996, more than fourteen

            months later.

                      In  addition,   Aharon  failed  to   demonstrate  a

            60(b)(6) claim, a claim not subject to a specific limitations

            period,   because   he    failed   to   show    extraordinary

            circumstances.   See  Valley  Citizens for  a  Safe Env't  v.
___  ___________________________________

            Aldridge, 969  F.2d 1315, 1317  (1st Cir. 1992)  ("A district
________

            court  will grant  a Rule  60(b)(6) motion  only if  it finds

            'exceptional'  circumstances   that  justify   'extraordinary



                                         -2-















            relief.") (citation  omitted).   Most notably,  he failed  to

            present  any  reason  justifying  departure from  the  normal

            maximum limitation period required by 60(b)(2)  and 60(b)(3).

            See Simon  v. Navon, 1997 WL 279921, at  *5 (1st Cir. June 2,
___ _____     _____

            1997).  He also failed to show that his case (or  any part of

            it) cannot proceed in Israel.1
1

                      Finally, although Aharon has  not raised the point,

            we do  not think  the circumstances of  this case  sustain an

            independent  action for "fraud upon the court."  Accordingly,

            the  decision of  the district  court  denying the  motion to

            vacate is affirmed.
________
























____________________

               1Indeed, although  Aharon suggests  that  his invasion  of
1
            privacy claim cannot  proceed in Israel because it  is barred
            by  the relevant statute of limitations, his Israeli attorney
            opines that Yedioth Ahronoth, Ltd.  has waived any statute of
            limitations defense.

                                         -3-