USCA1 Opinion

June 5, 1995
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________

No. 95-1161

YASAMIN PAKIZEGI,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON,

Defendant, Appellee.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]

___________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge,

___________
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________

____________________

Yasamin Pakizegi on brief pro se.

________________
Robert B. Gordon, Richard P. Ward and
________________ ________________

Ropes & Gray on brief

____________

appellee.

____________________

____________________

Per Curiam.
___________

Appellant

Yasamin

Pakizegi appeals

from

the denial of her motion for relief from judgment filed

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3).

"[T]he

committed

treatment

of

Rule

60(b)

motion

is

to the discretion of the district court and may be

reversed only upon a finding of an abuse of that discretion."

Ojeda-Toro v. Rivera-Mendez, 853 F.2d 25, 28 (1st Cir. 1988).

__________
_____________

We

find an abuse of

discretion if we

"the court below committed

conclusion it reached

factors."

a clear error of judgment

upon a

relevant

United States v. Boch Oldsmobile, Inc.,

______________
_____________________

909 F.2d

of the

merits of the

weighing of

in the

all the

657, 660 (1st Cir. 1990).

the denial

become convinced that

Finally, our review is confined to

Rule 60(b)

motion; we do

underlying judgment.

not treat

Ojeda-Toro,
__________

the

853 F.2d at

28.

Rule

"fraud

60(b)(3)

(whether

extrinsic),

allows

heretofore

party."

National

Bank

Appellant

of

Boston

from

denominated

misrepresentation,

adverse

relief

or

for

intrinsic

or

other misconduct

alleges

(the

judgment

that

"Bank")

of

appellee

made

an

First

numerous

misrepresentations of fact in its motion for summary judgment

on appellant's

terminated

based

violation of

U.S.C.

claim that

on

her

her

national

Title VII of the

2000e

et seq.
__ ____

employment at

To

origin

Civil Rights Act

prevail on

the Bank

was

(Iranian)

in

of 1964, 42

her Rule

60(b)(3)

motion,

appellant

misrepresentations

must

show

prevented

her

presenting her defense

In re M/V Peacock, 809

__________________

that

from

these

"fully

to the summary judgment

F.2d 1403, 1404-05

alleged

and fairly"

motion.

See
___

(9th Cir. 1987).

Misrepresentations can have this effect only when a party did

not

have knowledge of the alleged

information which

could have

inaccuracies or access to

resulted in this

knowledge at

the

time of the alleged misconduct.

Ojeda-Toro, 853 F.2d at

__________

29.

In

support

misrepresentations

of

of

her

fact

claim

in

judgment, appellant points to

the

that

the

motion

Bank

for

made

summary

the documents submitted by the

Bank in support of the motion and the documents she submitted

in opposition to the

states

motion.

in her brief on

misrepresentations to

Indeed, appellant specifically

appeal that she

the

attention of

brought the alleged

the district

court

prior to its grant of summary judgment.

________

"Even

where misrepresentations

litigation, it is not

to

are made

an abuse of discretion to

during a

deny relief

the losing party under Rule 60(b)(3), where the party had

access

to accurate

information."

Moore's Federal Practice

_________________________

1994-95)

7 J.

60.24[5],

(footnote omitted).

at 90

J. Lucas,

(2d ed.

Supp.

Because appellant already had

presented

her position to the district

that

Bank's supposed

the

Moore &

court, we cannot say

misrepresentations

-3-

prevented her

from

fully presenting her case.

F.2d at 1405.

Thus,

in determining

See In re M/V Peacock, 809

___ _________________

the court did not abuse

that appellant could

its discretion

not rely on

the Bank's

alleged fraud as a reason for relief from judgment under Rule

60(b)(3).

We

appellant's

therefore need not reach

Rule

60(b)(3)

motion

the question whether

was

filed

within

reasonable time.

The judgment of the

district court is affirmed and

________

appellant's request for oral argument is denied.

______

-4-