Abc Arbitrage S. A. v. Herve Caen

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 10 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ABC ARBITRAGE S. A., a French No. 19-56142
corporation,
D.C. No.
Plaintiff-Appellee, 2:16-cv-07014-SJO-E
v.
MEMORANDUM*
HERVE CAEN, a citizen and resident of
California,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 8, 2021**
Pasadena, California
Before: TASHIMA, M. SMITH, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Hervé Caen appeals the district court’s denial of his second motion to set aside
the default judgment against him pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b)(6). Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
here, except as necessary to provide context to our ruling. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), a court may set aside a default judgment “only
where extraordinary circumstances prevented a litigant from seeking earlier, more
timely relief.” United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049
(9th Cir. 1993). Extraordinary circumstances are those “beyond [the party’s]
control.” Cmty. Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 2002). Rule
60(b)(6) requires that the motion be filed “within a reasonable time.” Although what
is considered reasonable “depends on the facts of each case, relief may not be had
where the party seek reconsideration has ignored normal legal recourses.” Alpine
Land, 984 F.2d at 1049 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Extraordinary circumstances do not exist here. Caen does not establish that
anything “beyond [his] control prevented” him from taking “timely action to protect
[his] interests.” Id. Instead, Caen argues that the merits of the underlying case
warrant setting aside the default judgment. A party’s dissatisfaction with a district
court’s decision, however, does not amount to extraordinary circumstances under
Rule 60(b)(6). See Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338,
1341 (9th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, Caen may not use Rule 60(b)(6) as a mechanism
for challenging the merits of a case he lost more than two years ago, without offering
any excuse for his delay.
2
AFFIRMED.
3