Ahron v. Yedioth Israel, Inc. ( 1997 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-