Jeffrey P. Schultz v. Commerce First Financial, as the Successor-In-Interest to and for Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

The majority states that “[t]he district court expressed concern that Schultz might be using subsections (b)(5) and (6) to complete an end run around the one-year limitations period, but did not specifically reject his claims for this reason.” I disagree with the *1026last clause of this sentence. The district court specifically and correctly rejected Schultz’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(5 and (6) because it was not timely:

Finally, Schultz’s motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(5) and (6) is denied because it is not timely. Schultz’s allegations basically come down to an allegation of mutual…