Judgment was entered against Hewitt in 2012 for violating the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule.  The judgment required him to pay nearly $500 million in equitable monetary relief.  In AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC (2021) 141 S.Ct. 1341, the Supreme Court held that the FTC Act did not authorize awards of equitable monetary relief.  Hewitt moved to vacate that portion of the judgment against him under FRCP 60(b).  Held, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief.  Hewitt wasn’t entitled to relief under 60(b)(4).  Under United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa (2010) 559 U.S. 260, 271, the court did not lack jurisdiction to render a decision in accord with then-extant precedent, and Hewitt hadn’t been deprived of due process, having had full notice and opportunity to be heard.  He was not entitled to relief under 60(b)(5) as the requirement to pay monetary relief was not executory and did not involve court supervision of Hewitt’s future conduct (other than payment of the required sum).  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief under 60(b)(6) as the Supreme Court’s holding contrary to Ninth Circuit precedent was not an extraordinary circumstance and Hewitt had not been diligent, never contesting the statutory authority for the award until the Supreme Court’s decision a decade later.  The additional factors of finality of judgment and doing justice were not decisively tipped in Hewitt’s favor.