Tenth Circuit Expounds upon Standards for Rule 60(b) Post-Judgment Relief

Then Tenth Circuit's recent decision in Zurich North America v. Matrix Service, Inc., 426 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir. Oct. 18 2005) provides an excellent discussion of the standards for obtaining post-judgment relief under various provisions of FRCP Rule 60(b), specifically Rule 60(b)(2) [new evidence], (b)(3) [fraud] and (b)(6) [any other reason].

Relief under Rule 60(b)(2) was properly denied said the court because the purported new evidence was simply pre-existing information of which Zurich's counsel was aware but neglected to seek. Relief under Rule (b)(3) was properly denied because the alleged fraud--the failure of the adversary to produce documents--failed to rise to the level of fraud between the parties. Finally, relief under Rule 60(b)(6) was properly denied because no other basis for relief was put forward beyond the previously alleged fraud; as the court noted, "Parties moving for relief under Rule 60(b) cannot simply throw in subsection (6) without any new arguments and expect to obtain a new trial."