We review here not the special master's November 2019 denial of compensation but the special master's November 2021 decision to deny relief from judgment under Claims Court Rule 60(b), applying standards elaborated in cases interpreting the identical Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (which governs in district courts). Progressive Industries, Inc. v. United States, 888 F.3d 1248, 1253 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Information Systems &Networks Corp. v. United States, 994 F.2d 792, 794 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). "The grant or denial of a motion for relief from judgment is discretionary, and the standard of review therefore is whether the trial court abused its discretion."
We review the Court of Federal Claims' denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. E.g., Progressive Indus., Inc. v. United States, 888 F.3d 1248, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2018). "A court abuses its discretion when (1) its decision is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary[,] or fanciful; (2) the decision is based upon an erroneous construction of the law; (3) its factual findings are clearly erroneous; or (4) the record contains no evidence upon which the . . . court could have rationally based its decision."
; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h) (identical). Appropriately borrowing from case law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, seeProgressive Industries, Inc. v. United States , 888 F.3d 1248, 1253 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[T]he precedent interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies with equal force to the comparable Rules of the Court of Federal Claims."), the parties before us recognize the existence of two common methods for determining what fee to award, under the reasonableness standard, in a case like this, in which a common fund is recovered.
RCFC 23(h); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(h) (identical). Appropriately borrowing from case law under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, see Progressive Industries, Inc. v. United States, 888 F.3d 1248, 1253 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[T]he precedent interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies with equal force to the comparable Rules of the Court of Federal Claims."), the parties before us recognize the existence of two common methods for determining what fee to award, under the reasonableness standard, in a case like this, in which a common fund is recovered.
We look to cases interpreting Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs in district courts, in interpreting the identical Claims Court's Rule 60(b). See Progressive Industries, Inc. v. United States , 888 F.3d 1248, 1253 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ; Information Systems & Networks Corp. v. United States , 994 F.2d 792, 794 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1993). We review a decision to grant or deny relief under Rule 60(b) for an abuse of discretion, including an error of law or clearly erroneous finding of fact.
at least for the issue presented here, the Rule 37 standard governs, even if Rule 41 (or a court's inherent power) is invoked, as the Supreme Court made clear long ago in addressing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which are indistinguishable from the Claims Court's Rules in the respects at issue here. See Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S. A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197, 207 (1958) (explaining that dismissal of a case as a discovery sanction "depends exclusively upon Rule 37"; that "[t]here is no need to resort to Rule 41(b), which appears in that part of the Rules concerned with trials and which lacks such specific references to discovery"; and that "[r]eliance upon Rule 41, which cannot easily be interpreted to afford a court more expansive powers than does Rule 37, or upon 'inherent power,' can only obscure analysis of the problem before us"); Progressive Industries, Inc. v. United States, 888 F.3d 1248, 1253 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[T]he precedent interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies with equal force to the comparable Rules of the Court of Federal Claims.").
Progressive Indus., Inc. v. United States, 888 F.3d 1248, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2018). We also review the denial of leave to file an amended complaint for an abuse of discretion.
ProgressiveIndus., Inc. v. United States, 888 F.3d 1248, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2018). We see no abuse of discretion.
But the correction sought must pertain to the alteration, not to unaltered parts of the judgment. See Progressive Indus., Inc. v. United States, 888 F.3d 1248, 1252-55 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Tru-Art Sign Co., Inc. v. Local 137 Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Ass'n, 852 F.3d 217, 221- 22 (2d Cir. 2017) ("When both an initial judgment and an amended judgment exist, the timeliness of a Rule 59(e) motion is determined from the date of the amended judgment only if the motion bears some relationship to the district court's alteration of the first judgment."); Harrell v. Dixon Bay Transp. Co., 718 F.2d 123, 127 (5th Cir. 1983); see also Banister v. Davis, 140 S. Ct. 1698, 1703 (2020) (a Rule 59(e) motion must be "tightly tied to the underlying judgment"). Because the district court did not and could not have amended its judgment on the fraud claims, Jeppesen's belated challenge remains untimely. Further, because Jeppesen failed to appeal the district court's ruling on the fraud claims in SOLIDFX I, the mandate rule precludes the district court from amending its judgment on remand.
DISCUSSIONThis court reviews a denial of a motion for relief from judgment for abuse of discretion. Progressive Indus., Inc. v. United States, 888 F.3d 1248, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2018). We review the Claims Court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Alpine PCS, Inc. v. United States, 878 F.3d 1086, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 2018).