FDIC v. Roffman

USCA1 Opinion [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 99-1087 BARRY LEHMAN, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. REVOLUTION PORTFOLIO, LLC, Third-Party Plaintiff, Appellee, v. STUART A. ROFFMAN, Third-Party Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Mark L. Wolf, U.S. District Judge] Before Selya, Circuit Judge, Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, and Boudin, Circuit Judge. David Berman for appellant. Paul M. McDermott with whom Jonathan W. Fitch and Sally & Fitch were on brief for third-party plaintiff, appellee Revolution Portfolio, LLC. SEPTEMBER 23, 1999 Per Curiam. The appeal before us is from the district court's denial of a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to revisit the earlier judgment granted in favor of the appellee's predecessor in interest. The judgement sought to be reopened was affirmed by this court in Lehman v. Revolution Portfolio LLC, 166 F.3d 389 (1st Cir. 1999), which provides the pertinent background. Having considered the record and the arguments of both sides, we are satisfied that several of the grounds on which appellant urges that the judgment be reopened are ones that were or should properly have been submitted to the district court prior to its entry of summary judgment; appellant does not show any adequate justification for considering them at this late date, apart from his disagreement with the legal conclusions of the district court. See Hoult v. Hoult, 57 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1995) (wrongly decided point of law not grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)). There are two other arguments that appellant claims have only become available subsequent to the summary judgment due to changed circumstances or newly revealed facts. Without deciding whether this avoids the Rule 60(b) bar, it is enough to say that the district court rejected both arguments on the merits, and we agree with the district court's reasoning and see no need for further discussion of the assignments of error. Affirmed.