12-699-cv Dattner v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 4 New York, on the 3rd day of January, two thousand thirteen. 5 6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 7 Chief Judge, 8 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 9 GUIDO CALABRESI, 10 Circuit Judges. 11 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 13 YEHSKEL DATTNER, 14 15 Plaintiff-Appellant, 16 17 -v.- 12-699-cv 18 19 CONAGRA INTERNATIONAL, INC., DONALD DA 20 PARMA, and CONAGRA FOODS, INC., 21 22 Defendants-Appellants. 23 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 24 25 FOR APPELLANTS: Gregory E. Galterio (Bension 26 Daniel DeFunis and Ira N. 27 Glauber on the brief), Jaffe & 28 Asher LLP, New York, New York. 1  1 2 FOR APPELLEES: Frank Harold Wohl (Patrick Paul 3 Garlinger on the brief), Lankler 4 Siffert & Wohl LLP, New York, 5 New York. 6 7 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 8 Court for the Southern District of New York (Preska, J.). 9 10 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 11 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be 12 AFFIRMED. 13 14 This is an appeal from the denial of Yeheskel Dattner’s 15 motion under Rule 60(b)(6) to reinstate his action, which 16 had been dismissed in 2003 for forum non conveniens. We 17 assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, 18 the procedural history, and the issues presented for review. 19 20 We conclude that Dattner’s appeal is without merit 21 substantially for the reasons articulated by the district 22 court in its well-reasoned decision. We have considered all 23 of Dattner’s remaining arguments and find them to be without 24 merit. 25 26 For the foregoing reasons, we hereby AFFIRM the 27 judgment of the district court. 28 29 30 FOR THE COURT: 31 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 32 2