Home > Case Law Studies, Intellectual Properties & Copyrights > Falsifiying Data 2: Scholastic Inc., J.K. Rowling, Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P., Plaintiffs-Counter-Claimant-Defendants-Appellees, v. Nancy Stouffer, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Cross-Claimant-Appellant, ABC Corporations, Cross-Defendant (United States of America)

Falsifiying Data 2: Scholastic Inc., J.K. Rowling, Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P., Plaintiffs-Counter-Claimant-Defendants-Appellees, v. Nancy Stouffer, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Cross-Claimant-Appellant, ABC Corporations, Cross-Defendant (United States of America)

Scholastic Inc., J.K. Rowling, Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P., Plaintiffs-Counter-Claimant-Defendants-Appellees, v. Nancy Stouffer, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Cross-Claimant-Appellant, ABC Corporations, Cross-Defendant.
05-6976-cv
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
217 Fed. Appx. 15; 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 3072

February 8, 2007, Decided
NOTICE: [**1] PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.

PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. (Rakoff, J.).
Scholastic Inc. v. Stouffer, 81 Fed. Appx. 396, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 24243 (2d Cir. N.Y., 2003)

COUNSEL: Nancy Stouffer, Appellant, Pro se, Mechanicsburg, PA.

For Appellee Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P.: Dale Cendali Click for Enhanced  Coverage Linking Searches, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, NY.

For Appellees Scholastic Inc. and J.K. Rowling: Edward H. Rosenthal Click  for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searches (Jessie F. Beeber Click for  Enhanced Coverage Linking Searches on the brief), Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, P.C., New York, NY.

JUDGES: Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges, LEONARD B. SAND, * District Judge.

* The Honorable Leonard B. Sand, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

[*15] SUMMARY ORDER

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Defendant-appellant Nancy Stouffer appeals from the October 3, 2005, order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Rakoff, J.) denying Stouffer’s motion [**2] for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and specification of issues on appeal.

We find no abuse of discretion in the District Court’s conclusion that Stouffer’s  [*16] Rule 60(b) motion was untimely. Although styled as a Rule 60(b)(6) motion, Stouffer in fact seeks to set aside the judgment on the basis of alleged new evidence that purportedly demonstrates fraud on the part of plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel in the prior proceedings. Thus, Stouffer’s motion is appropriately brought under the provisions of Rule 60(b)(1)-(3), all of which require the motion be filed within one year of the entry of judgment. See Warren v. Garvin, 219 F.3d 111, 114 (2d Cir. 2000) (“Rule 60(b)(6) only applies if the reasons offered for relief from judgment are not covered under the more specific provisions of Rule 60(b)(1)-(5).”). Stouffer, however, did not file her Rule 60(b) motion until nearly three years after judgment was entered by the District Court. We reject Stouffer’s argument that her motion was timely because it was filed within one of year of this Court’s [**3] denial of Stouffer’s motion for rehearing en banc. The filing of an appeal does not toll the one-year time period within which a Rule 60 motion alleging fraud or newly discovered evidence must be filed. See King v. First Am. Investigations, Inc., 287 F.3d 91, 94 (2d Cir. 2002). Furthermore, even if Stouffer’s motion could properly be characterized as a Rule 60(b)(6) motion, Stouffer has made no showing of “extraordinary circumstances or extreme hardship that warrant relief from judgment.” PRC Harris, Inc. v. Boeing Co., 700 F.2d 894, 897 (2d Cir. 1983) (“[B]ecause of the potentially broad scope of [Rule 60(b)(6)], relief should only be granted where the moving party has demonstrated ‘extraordinary circumstances’ or ‘extreme hardship.'”).

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

  1. Devry University Reviews
    November 23, 2011 at 11:30 pm

    Since fitting for some time for just a proper read in regards to this kinda niche .

  1. August 16, 2014 at 11:38 am
    pinterest
  2. September 13, 2014 at 11:02 pm
    SA9 conservatories
  3. October 9, 2014 at 1:23 pm
    Ballindalloch friendly builders

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: