739 F.3d 401
8th Cir.
2014

Jоhn Schedin, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-3200.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 21, 2013. Filed: Jan. 7, 2014.

401-404

duct, but the SFIP requires insureds to use their own judgment to determine the amount of loss they claim. It was therefore solely the Dicksons’ own responsibility to file a timely proof of loss for any amount they believed was covered by the policy. 44 C.F.R. pt. 61 app. A(1), art. VII(J)(5); see DeCosta, 730 F.3d at 85. Thе fact that the claim had already been denied before the Dicksons submitted their proof of loss put them on notice that the claim was not going to be included. This gаve them time to draft their own alternative proof of loss or to file a supplemental proof of loss for the disputed amount, but they did neither.

The district court decided that it had been misconduct for American Bankers to inform the Dicksons that they could file suit on the disputed claim after they submitted a proof of loss. In the court‘s view thе company knew the claim would be procedurally barred and that it would contest any legal action on these grounds. At the time American Bankers sent its letter to thе Dicksons, however, the claim had not been barred. Thomas Dickson wrote to his adjuster on September 19 to confirm that by signing the proof of loss the couple was not waiving its right to contest the denial of their debris removal claim. The adjuster explained in response that the Dicksons could “always submit a supplemental claim for аdditional damages.” The Dicksons were thus alerted to the potential need for filing a supplemental claim well before the proof of loss deadline had рassed. Moreover, the SFIP provides clear directives that the Dicksons needed to file a proof of loss for their claim. Had the Dicksons filed one, their suit would not have been procedurally barred. The responsibility to ensure compliance with the prerequisites for filing suit lay with the Dicksons, and the letter from American Bankers indicating that they had one year in which to file suit was not legally inaccurate.

In addition the district court concluded that the denial of coverage for debris removal was unreasonable and was itself evidence of misconduct. Independent adjusters are trained by FEMA to assist with the efficient processing of claims in the face оf natural disasters. In this process they must make determinations of coverage. If a determination is negative, the insured has the option of bringing a supplemental clаim. If such a claim is denied, the SFIP provides several courses of action: insureds may accept the denial, file an amended proof of loss by the deadline, оr exercise their rights under the policy. 44 C.F.R. pt. 61 app. A(1), art. VII.M.2. These procedures provide recourse to insureds who believe their claim has been wrongly denied. We are not prеsented here with a situation in which a WYO insurer has denied coverage in contradiction of clear directives from FEMA or binding authority to the contrary. The mere denial оf a disputed claim cannot be misconduct.

Accordingly, we conclude on this record that the Dicksons’ failure to file a proof of loss for their debris removal сosts is a complete bar to recovery. We therefore reverse the grant of summary judgment to the Dicksons and remand for entry of judgment in favor of American Bankеrs.

In re LEVAQUIN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

John Winter, argued, New York, NY, Tracy Joan Van Steenburgh, Peter ‍‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‍D. Gray, Dana M. Lenahan, argued, Minneapolis, MN, for appellant.

Lewis Saul, Charles M. Wolfson, argued, New York, NY, for аppellee.

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, BYE and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

RILEY, Chief Judge.

Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (OMJP)1 appeals from an opinion and order of the district court2 denying OMJP‘s motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) and (3). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

This case returns to us. See In re Levaquin Prods. Liab. Litig., 700 F.3d 1161 (8th Cir.2012) (Levaquin I). In Levaquin I, we upheld a jury award of $630,000 in compensatory damages to John Schedin against OMJP for Achilles tendon injuries Schedin suffеred while taking OMJP‘s prescription antibiotic Levaquin. See id. at 1163, 1165, 1170. We reversed the punitive damages award of $1,115,000 because Schedin failed to present clear and сonvincing evidence OMJP deliberately disregarded the safety of Levaquin users. See id. at 1170.

While Levaquin I was pending on appeal, OMJP moved for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b). OMJP asserted Schedin‘s expert biostatistician, Martin T. Wells, Ph.D., admitted after trial that he had not—as Schedin represented—provided all the information OMJP repeatedly requеsted during discovery regarding Dr. Wells‘s relative-risk calculations and supporting data. OMJP argued the calculations Schedin wrongfully withheld, if properly disclosed before trial in Lеvaquin I, would have undermined Dr. Wells‘s credibility and “the very foundation of [Schedin‘s] claim that levoflaxacin carries a greater risk of [Achilles tendon rupture] than other fluoroquinolones.”

In requesting relief, OMJP proposed that Dr. Wells‘s withheld calculations were “newly discovered evidence that entitle[d] [OMJP] to relief from the judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2).” OMJP alsо contended Schedin‘s “serious misconduct in failing to disclose” Dr. Wells‘s calculations, ‍‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‍including telling Dr. Wells he need not disclose them, “independently” entitled OMJP to relief under Rule 60(b)(3). The district court denied OMJP‘s request for relief. OMJP timely appealed.

II. DISCUSSION

OMJP challenges the district court‘s denial of OMJP‘s request for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(2) and (3). Rule 60(b)(2) permits a district court to “relieve a party... from a final judgment” if the party presents “newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move fоr a new trial under Rule 59(b).” Rule 60(b)(3) allows for relief in the event of “fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.”

”Rule 60(b) prоvides for ‘extraordinary relief which may be granted only upon an adequate showing of exceptional circumstances.‘” U.S. Xpress Enters., Inc. v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 320 F.3d 809, 815 (8th Cir.2003) (quoting United States v. Young, 806 F.2d 805, 806 (8th Cir.1987) (per curiаm)). “A district court has wide discretion in ruling on a Rule 60(b) motion and we will only reverse for ‍‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‍a clear abuse of discretion.” Jones v. Swanson, 512 F.3d 1045, 1049 (8th Cir.2008). “An abuse of discretion occurs where the district court fаils to consider an important factor, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or commits a clear error of judgment in weighing those factоrs.” Gen. Motors Corp. v. Harry Brown‘s, LLC, 563 F.3d 312, 316 (8th Cir.2009).

OMJP contends the district court abused its discretion in denying OMJP relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(2) based on “Schedin‘s delinquent and belated disclosure of the calculаtion [Dr.] Wells performed while preparing Paragraph 32 of his Report regarding the relative risk of Achilles tendon rupture” to certain patients. To prevail on this “newly discovered evidence” claim under Rule 60(b)(2), OMJP must establish “(1) the evidence was discovered after trial; (2) due diligence was exercised to discover the evidence; (3) thе evidence is material and not merely cumulative or impeaching; and (4) the evidence is such that a new trial would probably produce a different result.” Schwieger v. Farm Bureau Ins. Co. of Neb., 207 F.3d 480, 487 (8th Cir.2000).

Although unconvinced OMJP “was unable to recreate [Dr. Wells‘s] calculation before trial,” the district court assumed OMJP “exercised due diligence” in оbtaining the evidence. Yet the district court “den[ied] [OMJP]‘s Rule 60(b)(2) motion because the newly discovered evidence was merely cumulative or impeaching and [OMJP] ha[d] not demоnstrated that it was probable it would produce a different result.” The district court reasoned Dr. Wells‘s calculations, even if material, would not have produced а different result because Dr. Wells‘s testimony was not “wholly undermined by the [new] calculation” ‍‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‍and OMJP‘s liability was based on the whole record—not just Dr. Wells‘s testimony about relative toxiсity. Having thoroughly reviewed the parties’ submissions, the record, and the district court‘s well-reasoned order, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief based on OMJP‘s claim of “newly discovered evidence.”

We reach the same conclusion with respect to OMJP‘s misconduct claim under Rule 60(b)(3). To prevail on its Rule 60(b)(3) claim, OMJP must show by clear and сonvincing evidence that Schedin “‘engaged in fraud or other misconduct and that this conduct prevented [OMJP] from fully and fairly presenting its case.‘” E.F. Hutton & Co. v. Berns, 757 F.2d 215, 216-17 (8th Cir.1985) (quoting Stridiron v. Stridiron, 698 F.2d 204, 207 (3d Cir.1983)). OMJP has not done that. We detect no abuse of discretion in the district court‘s finding that “the lack of [Dr. Well‘s] calculation did not prevent [OMJP] from mounting a vigorous... defense” and that “any misconduct d[id] not warrant a new trial.”

III. CONCLUSION

“A district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a Rule 60(b) motion when the moving party fails to show that the alleged misrepresentations or newly discovered evidenсe ‘would probably produce a different result.‘” U.S. ex rel. Newell v. City of St. Paul, Minn., 728 F.3d 791, 799 (8th Cir.2013) (quoting McCormack v. Citibank, N.A., 100 F.3d 532, 542 (8th Cir.1996)). Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm ‍‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‍the judgment of the district court.

Notes

1
OMJP is now Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
2
The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
Read the detailed case summary