Comeaux v. Tex-Air Helicopters, Inc. , 96 F. App'x 958 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit May 17, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-30892
RANDY J. COMEAUX
Plaintiff - Appellee
VERSUS
TEX-AIR HELICOPTERS, INC., ET AL
Defendants
TEX-AIR HELICOPTERS, INC.; UNITED STATES AVIATION UNDERWRITERS
INSURANCE CO., on behalf of US Aircraft Insurance Group
Defendants - Appellees
VERSUS
EUROCOPTER S A S; AMERICAN EUROCOPTER CORP.;LA REUNION AERIENNE
Defendants - Appellants
TEX-AIR HELICOPTERS, INC., As manager, on behalf of US Aircraft
Insurance Group; UNITED STATES AVIATION UNDERWRITERS, INC., As
manager, on behalf of US Aircraft Insurance Group
Plaintiffs - Appellees
VERSUS
EUROCOPTER S A S; ET AL
Defendants
EUROCOPTER S A S; AMERICAN EUROCOPTER CORP.; LA REUNION AERIENNE
Defendants - Appellants
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette
00-CV-2681
Before DAVIS, PRADO and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
We affirm the judgment of the district court because Rule
60(b)(4) F.R.C.P. is not an appropriate vehicle for Eurocopter and
AEC to challenge the sanctions order for the following reasons:
1. Appellants have not demonstrated why the proper vehicle
for challenging the sanctions order was not a direct appeal from
the final judgment. While Rule 60(b)(4) may relieve a party who
demonstrates one of the six bases for relief under the rule, it may
not be used as a substitute for appeal. See Gary v. Louisiana, 622
F.2d 804(5th Cir. 1980).
2. Also, appellants’s reliance on Rule 60(b)(4) to
challenge the district court’s sanctions order does not comport
with the purpose of the rule. Rule 60(b)(4) is intended to strike
a balance between preserving the finality of a judgment and
insuring that justice was done. See Williams v. New Orleans Public
Service, 728 F.2d 730, 733(5th Cir. 1984). Because appellants
elected to submit to the judgment of dismissal by agreeing to a
settlement without reserving their right to appeal the sanctions
order, application of Rule 60(b) in this instance would result in
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2
unnecessary disruption of the district court’s final judgment. A
balancing of the equities in this case falls in favor of preserving
the finality of the judgment.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.
3