Cluster 444654 (1985)

See also In re U.S. for Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F.3d 600, 610 (5th Cir. 2013); Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc. v. U.S. S.E.C., 748 F.2d 1415, 1419 (10th Cir. 1984).

That action, the procedural history of which is described in one of the Tenth Circuit’s opinions in this litigation, Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc. v. SEC, 748 F.2d 1415, 1417-18 (10th Cir.1984), indicates that twelve days before the SEC filed its complaint in federal district court in Denver, Blinder, Robinson and Mr. Blinder repaired to the same court in an attempted preemptive strike.

Comm’n, 748 F.2d 1415, 1418 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1125 , 105 S.Ct. 2655 , 86 L.Ed.2d 272 (1985).

Even if jurisdiction were vested in this court, the motion would be denied. 'A Rule 60(b) motion is an extraordinary procedure which may be granted in a showing of due cause.' Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc., 748 F.2d 1415, 1420 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1125 , 105 S.Ct. 2655 , 86 L.Ed.2d 272 (1985).

Even if jurisdiction were vested in this court, the motion would be denied. ‘A Rule 60(b) motion is an extraordinary procedure which may be granted in a showing of due cause.’ Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc., 748 F.2d 1415, 1420 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1125 , 105 S.Ct. 2655 , 86 L.Ed.2d 272 (1985).

Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 241 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 464 , 81 L.Ed. 617 (1937); Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc. v. S.E.C., 748 F.2d 1415, 1418 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1125 , 105 S.Ct. 2655 , 86 L.Ed.2d 272 (1985).

See, e.g., Chang v. Smith, 778 F.2d 83, 86 (1st Cir. 1985) (“Rule 60(b) cannot be used to relieve a litigant from improvident strategic choices.”); Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d 244, 258 (3d Cir. 2008) (holding that the court abused its discretion in granting relief when the judgment “was the result of a deliberate choice” by the defendant); Chambers v. Armontrout, 16 F.3d 257, 261 (8th Cir. 1994) (holding that relief was not justified when the defendant “could have…

However, “[t]o state a constitutional claim, plaintiff must do more than simply state a conclusion or engage in ‘artful pleading.’ ” Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc. v. U.S. S.E.C., 748 F.2d 1415, 1419 (10th Cir.1984) (internal citations omitted).

Thus, “[a] declaratory *282 judgment on the validity of a repealed ordinance is a textbook example of ‘advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.’ ” National Advertising Co. v. City and County of Denver, 912 F.2d 405, 412 (10th Cir.1990) (quoting Blinder, Robinson & Co. v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission, 748 F.2d 1415, 1418 (10th Cir.1984)).

Bohlin Co., Inc. v. Banning Co., Inc., 6 F.3d 350, 357 (5th Cir.1993) (“In fact, a court would abuse its discretion if it were to reopen a case under Rule 60(b)(1) when the reason asserted justifying relief is on attributable solely to counsel’s carelessness with or misapprehension of the law or the applicable rules of court.); Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc. v. United States SEC, 748 F.2d 1415, 1420 (10th Cir.1984) (“Even assuming that [plaintiffs] attorney’s failure to objec…

Comm’n, 748 F.2d 1415, 1418 (10th Cir.1984)).

“To state a constitutional claim, plaintiff must do more than simply state a conclusion or engage in ‘artful pleading.’ A plaintiff must state a compensable claim for relief that details the facts forming the basis for the claim.” Blinder, Robinson, & Co., Inc. v. U.S. S.E.C., 748 F.2d 1415, 1419 (10th Cir.1984) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

Ill of the Constitution, federal court jurisdiction ‘depends on the existence of a case or controversy.’ ” Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc. v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission, 748 F.2d 1415, 1418 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 2655 , 86 L.Ed.2d 272 (1985) citing North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244 , 92 S.Ct. 402 , 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971).

See Blinder, Robinson & Co. v. United States SEC, 748 F.2d 1415 , 1420 (10th Cir.1984).

The procedure approved by us in this case is for the district court to indicate that it would grant the 60(b) motion if it had jurisdiction, and for the our court to then remand the case to the district court for that court to decide the motion; see Blinder, Robinson & Co. v. SEC., 748 F.2d 1415 , 1420 (10th Cir.1984) ("In ordinary civil cases the rule is that after an appeal has been taken the district court retains jurisdiction to consider and deny a rule 60(b) motion and,…

The procedure approved by us in this case is for the district court to indicate that it would grant the 60(b) motion if it had jurisdiction, and for the our court to then remand the case to the district court for that court to decide the motion; see Blinder, Robinson & Co. v. SEC., 748 F.2d 1415 , 1420 (10th Cir.1984) ("In ordinary civil cases the rule is that after an appeal has been taken the district court retains jurisdiction to consider and deny a rule 60(b) motion and,…

See Blinder, Robinson & Co. v. United States, 748 F.2d 1415 (10th Cir.1984); Smith v. Bounds, 813 F.2d 1299, 1304 (4th Cir.1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 176 , 102 L.Ed.2d 146 (1988); Cline v. Hoogland, 518 F.2d 776 (8th Cir.1975); Bershad v. McDonough, 469 F.2d 1333, 1336-37 (7th Cir.1972); Greenspahn v. Joseph E.

See Blinder, Robinson & Co. v. United States, 748 F.2d 1415 (10th Cir.1984); Smith v. Bounds, 813 F.2d 1299, 1304 (4th Cir.1987), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 109 S.Ct. 176 , 102 L.Ed.2d 146 (1988); Cline v. Hoogland, 518 F.2d 776 (8th Cir.1975); Bershad v. McDonough, 469 F.2d 1333, 1336-37 (7th Cir.1972); Greenspahn v. Joseph E.

"It necessarily follows that when pending an appeal from the judgment of a lower court, ... an event occurs which renders it impossible ... to grant [plaintiff] any effectual relief whatever, the Court will not proceed to a formal judgment but will dismiss the appeal." Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 , 16 S.Ct. 132, 133 , 40 L.Ed. 293 (1895); see also Blinder, Robinson & Co. v. SEC, 748 F.2d 1415 , 1418 (10th Cir.1984) ("relief sought must be capable of addressing the alle…

“It necessarily follows that when pending an appeal from the judgment of a lower court, ... an event occurs which renders it impossible ... to grant [plaintiff] any effectual relief whatever, the Court will not proceed to a formal judgment but will dismiss the appeal.” Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653 , 16 S.Ct. 132, 133 , 40 L.Ed. 293 (1895); see also Blinder, Robinson & Co. v. SEC, 748 F.2d 1415 , 1418 (10th Cir.1984) (“relief sought must be capable of addressing the alle…

See also Blinder, Robinson & Co. v. United States S.E.C., 748 F.2d 1415 , 1419 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1125 , 105 S.Ct. 2655 , 86 L.Ed.2d 272 (1985) (plaintiff must do more than state a conclusion or engage in “artful pleading” to state a constitutional claim).

See also Blinder, Robinson & Co. v. United States SEC., 748 F.2d 1415 , 1386-87 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1125 , 105 S.Ct. 2655 , 86 L.Ed.2d 272 (1985).