
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-2281                                  BEN-TOVIM, AHARON,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                                YEDIOTH ISRAEL, INC.,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. Nancy J. Gertner, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,                                        _____________                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,                                   ____________________                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.                                         _____________                                 ____________________        Ben-Tovim, Aharon on brief pro se.        _________________        Frances  S. Cohen, Anne  L. Showalter and  Hill & Barlow  on brief for        _________________  __________________      _____________        appellee, Yedioth Ahronoth, Ltd.                                 ____________________                                    July 18, 1997                                 ____________________                      Per Curiam.   Plaintiff-appellant  Ben-Tovim Aharom                      __________            appeals pro  se from the  denial of a postjudgment  motion to                    ___  __            vacate a forum non conveniens dismissal.  We affirm.                     _____ ___ __________                      Although the motion  to vacate did not  cite to any            rule (or other authority for bringing a collateral  attack on            the judgment),  we construe it  as a Rule 60(b)  motion.  The            motion   was   predicated   on   alleged   newly   discovered            misrepresentations  by   defendant  Yedioth   Ahronoth,  Ltd.            However,  Aharon  could  not  challenge  the  judgment  under            60(b)(2)  (newly discovered evidence)  or 60(b)(3)  (fraud or            misrepresentation)  because, under the terms of the rule, any            such motion must  be made within one year  after the entry of            judgment.   Baltia Air Lines, Inc. v. Transaction Management,                        ______________________    _______________________            Inc.,  98  F.3d  640,  642  (D.C.  Cir.  1996);  Gonzalez  v.            ____                                             ________            Walgreens  Co., 918  F.2d  303,  305 (1st  Cir.  1990).   The            ______________            judgment of  dismissal was entered  on April 3, 1995  and the            current action was filed on June 24, 1996, more than fourteen            months later.                      In  addition,   Aharon  failed  to   demonstrate  a            60(b)(6) claim, a claim not subject to a specific limitations            period,   because   he    failed   to   show    extraordinary            circumstances.   See  Valley  Citizens for  a  Safe Env't  v.                             ___  ___________________________________            Aldridge, 969  F.2d 1315, 1317  (1st Cir. 1992)  ("A district            ________            court  will grant  a Rule  60(b)(6) motion  only if  it finds            'exceptional'  circumstances   that  justify   'extraordinary                                         -2-            relief.") (citation  omitted).   Most notably,  he failed  to            present  any  reason  justifying  departure from  the  normal            maximum limitation period required by 60(b)(2)  and 60(b)(3).            See Simon  v. Navon, 1997 WL 279921, at  *5 (1st Cir. June 2,            ___ _____     _____            1997).  He also failed to show that his case (or  any part of            it) cannot proceed in Israel.1                                           1                      Finally, although Aharon has  not raised the point,            we do  not think  the circumstances of  this case  sustain an            independent  action for "fraud upon the court."  Accordingly,            the  decision of  the district  court  denying the  motion to            vacate is affirmed.                      ________                                            ____________________               1Indeed, although  Aharon suggests  that  his invasion  of               1            privacy claim cannot  proceed in Israel because it  is barred            by  the relevant statute of limitations, his Israeli attorney            opines that Yedioth Ahronoth, Ltd.  has waived any statute of            limitations defense.                                         -3-
