Morani v. Landenberger ( 2000 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 00-1328
DENNIS G. MORANI,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM LANDENBERGER, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Boudin and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
Dennis G. Morani on brief pro se.
Thomas G. Nicholson and Finneran & Nicholson, P.C. on brief
for appellees.
December 11, 2000
Per Curiam. In this appeal, pro se appellant Dennis
Morani objects to the district court's denial of his motion
for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We
affirm, commenting here on only one of the claims raised in
the motion.1 Morani asserted that Thomas Nicholson, counsel
for appellees, William Landenberger and Commonwealth Equity
Service, Inc., had engaged in "fraud on the court" by
misrepresenting certain facts to the district court
concerning Morani's failure to call Landenberger as a
witness during arbitration proceedings. The district court
had apparently relied on Nicholson's representations in
denying Morani's motion to vacate an arbitration award.2 In
support of his claim, Morani submitted excerpts from
transcripts of the arbitration hearings (but did not provide
the court with full transcripts). However, these excerpts
did not establish that Nicholson had engaged in the alleged
misconduct. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse
1 The other claims did not justify Rule 60(b) relief because
they were either irrelevant to the particular issues resolved by
the district court judgment, sought reconsideration of issues
resolved in a prior appeal, see footnote 2 below, or had been
waived in prior proceedings.
2We affirmed the court's judgment denying the motion to
vacate in a prior appeal, Morani v. Landenberger, 196 F.3d 9
(1st Cir. 1999).
-2-
its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion. See Hoult
v. Hoult, 57 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1995) (noting that this
court reviews the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of
discretion); id. at 6 (holding that "newly discovered
evidence" under Rule 60(b)(2) must be "of such a material
and controlling nature as would probably have changed the
outcome" of the pertinent proceeding) (citation omitted;
internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); see
Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 862 F.2d 910, 923 (1st Cir. 1988)
(agreeing that misconduct under Rule 60(b)(3) must be
established by "clear and convincing evidence").
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
-3-