Corex Corp. v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 02 February 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-3647,78-3647 |
| Citation | 638 F.2d 119 |
| Parties | 81-1 USTC P 16,356 COREX CORPORATION, d/b/a Quick Corporation of America, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant/Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Gilbert S. Rothenberg, Washington, D. C., argued, William A. Friedlander, Washington, D. C., on brief, for defendant-appellant.
Bernard B. Laven, Laven & Laven, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before CHOY and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and HANSON, * Senior District Judge.
The substantive issue in this case is whether appellee Corex Corp. (taxpayer) or the Jon H. Importing Company (Jon. H.) was the "importer" of certain fishing equipment during the last half of 1968 and all of 1969 and thus subject to pay the excise tax imposed under Section 4161 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 4161. The district court's first judgment holding that Jon H. was the importer was reversed by a panel of this Court in Corex Corp. v. United States, 524 F.2d 1017 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 912, 96 S.Ct. 1508, 47 L.Ed.2d 762 (1976) ("Corex I "). The underlying facts of the case were recited in Corex I and do not bear repeating here.
After this Court reversed the district court's first judgment in favor of the taxpayer, a flurry of confused and confusing motions and orders ensued. Taxpayer believed that this Court's unqualified reversal entitled it to a new trial at which it would present new evidence to support its claim that Jon H. was the importer. The government, of course, disputed this construction of the Court's mandate. The district court ordered the parties to seek clarification from this Court as to the mandate. This Court denied taxpayer's "Petition for Clarification" on August 20, 1976, and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the United States.
The district court entered judgment for the government on November 12, 1976. Three days later taxpayer filed a motion for relief from judgment under F.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6), claiming that "newly discovered evidence" justified the granting of a new trial. The district court mistakenly believed that leave from this Court was required before it could rule upon taxpayer's motion. Taxpayer petitioned this Court on behalf of the district court for permission to hear taxpayer's motion. On February 14, 1977, this Court denied the request, stating that there was nothing before the Court and that permission from this Court to hear such a motion was not necessary. See Standard Oil Co. of California v. United States, 429 U.S. 17, 97 S.Ct. 31, 50 L.Ed.2d 21 (1976). Taxpayer then refiled its Rule 60(b)(6) motion, the district court granted it, and a new trial was held after which judgment for taxpayer was again entered. The issues on this appeal are (1) whether the district court abused its discretion in granting taxpayer's motion for relief from judgment and ordering a second trial in order to receive evidence of events occurring after the first trial; and (2) whether the district court erred by not following this Court's Corex I mandate.
1. The government argues that taxpayer's motion for relief from judgment should have been considered a 60(b)(2) motion seeking relief because of "newly discovered evidence" and not a motion under 60(b)(6) for "any other reason justifying relief." Rule 60(b) states in relevant part:
On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: * * * (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under rule 59(b) * * * (6) any other reason justifying relief form the operation of the judgment.
It is established that clause (6) and the preceding clauses are mutually exclusive; a motion brought under clause (6) must be for some reason other than the five reasons preceding it under the rule. Thus, in Corn v. Guam Coral Co., 318 F.2d 622 (9th Cir. 1963), the appellant alleged that both clause (2) and clause (6) entitled him to relief from judgment. This Court, citing Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601, 69 S.Ct. 384, 93 L.Ed. 266 (1949), rejected the claim for relief under clause (6): Id. at 632. Indeed, the language of clause (6) itself, referring to "any other reason justifying relief," seems to dictate such a result.
Similarly, in this case taxpayer invokes clause (6), but it has suggested no reason for relief from judgment other than newly discovered evidence. Taxpayer argues that clause (6) should be applied liberally, but the authorities indicate otherwise. Together, Klapprott and Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 71 S.Ct. 209, 95 L.Ed. 207 (1950), hold that clause (6) is reserved for "extraordinary circumstances." Id. at 199, 71 S.Ct. at 212. This circuit has followed this view. See Martella v. Marine Cooks & Stewards Union, Seafarer's Int. U., 448 F.2d 729, 730 (9th Cir. 1971). Because taxpayer has alleged no extraordinary circumstances entitling it to clause (6) relief, its motion seeking relief on the basis of newly discovered evidence must be reviewed as if it had been made under Rule 60(b)(2).
Cases construing "newly discovered evidence," either under 60(b)(2) or Rule 59, uniformly hold that evidence of events occurring after the trial is not newly discovered evidence within the meaning of the rules. State of Washington v. United States, 214 F.2d 33, 46 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 862, 75 S.Ct. 86, 99 L.Ed. 679 (1954); United States v. Bransen, 142 F.2d 232, 235 (9th Cir. 1944); see generally 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2859 at 182. Yet this was precisely the kind of evidence proferred by taxpayer in support of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United Artists Corp. v. La Cage Aux Folles, Inc.
...of extraordinary circumstances not related to inadvertence or neglect already covered in rule 60(b)(1). See Corex Corp. v. United States, 638 F.2d 119, 121 (9th Cir.1981). Unlike the rest of rule 60(b), subdivision (6) is construed harshly against the movant. See id. Danon, therefore, canno......
-
U.S. v. Bell
...preceding clauses.'" Lafarge Conseils et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement, 791 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir.1986), quoting Corex Corp. v. United States, 638 F.2d 119 (9th Cir.1981). Accordingly, "the clause is reserved for `extraordinary circumstances.'" Id. Defendants Bell have alleged fraud. The......
-
Gregorian v. Izvestia, CV 85-0100-KN.
...Relief under subsection (6) of Rule 60(b) has been said to be reserved for "extraordinary circumstances." Corex Corp. v. United States, 638 F.2d 119, 121 (9th Cir. 1981). The Court's review of such a discretionary standard would not be complete without determining whether the foreign policy......
-
Graefenhain v. Pabst Brewing Co.
...matter which had been finally concluded in the initial trial would not have been subject to reexamination. Cf. Corex Corp. v. United States, 638 F.2d 119, 121-22 (9th Cir.1981) (where appellate court has entered judgment, after occurring events may not be considered at the behest of the los......
-
The International Business Client and Immigrant Visas
...98. 8 C.F.R. §§ 242.1, 242.17(a) and 3.1(b)(2) (1982). See, Ramirez v. INS, 338 F.Supp. 398 (N.D. 111. 1972). See generally, Patel v. INS, 638 F.2d 119 (9th Cir. 1980). 99. Senator Simpson is the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy. Re......