RAI v. WB IMICO LEXINGTON FEE LLC (2018)

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellants appeal the District Court's order denying their motions, filed pursuant to Rules 60(b) and 62(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to vacate the judgment entered against them and to stay enforcement of the judgment pending decision on the motion to vacate. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We conclude that Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellants have abandoned any objection they could have made to the order because their opening brief fails to address the principal dispositive grounds on which the District Court based its decision to deny their motions and because we see no manifest injustice in the result. See, e.g., United States v. Joyner, 313 F.3d 40, 44 (2d Cir. 2002).¹

CONCLUSION

We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellants on appeal and find them to be without merit. We therefore AFFIRM the June 28, 2017 order of the District Court.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We lack jurisdiction to consider the merits of the District Court's March 31, 2017 judgment discussed in Plaintiffs-Counter-Defendants-Appellants’ brief. See Malik v. McGinnis, 293 F.3d 559, 561 (2d Cir. 2002).