concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in the result reached in Judge Hall’s opinion. Indeed, if we had jurisdiction, I could agree with it entirely. I respectfully dissent, however, from the holding that we have appellate jurisdiction over Danon’s appeal under an equitable exception to rule 4(a)(5), Fed.R.App.P. I would find no appellate jurisdiction over the appeal from the first order for lack of timeliness, but I would affirm Judge Marshall’s *1272order on the rule 60(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., motion for reconsideration.
I
Rule 4(a)(1), Fed.R.App.P., provides that appeals may be taken by nongovernmental parties in civil actions only if a notice of appeal is filed with the district court clerk within 30 days after entry of the order or judgment from which the appeal is taken. The rule also provides for an extension period. Rule 4(a)(5) states in part:
The district court, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, may extend the time for filing a notice of appeal upon motion filed not later than 30 days after the expiration of the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a).... No such extension shall exceed 30 days past such prescribed time or 10 days from the date of entry of the order granting the motion [to extend], whichever occurs later.
(emphasis added).
The district court entered the order dismissing Danon’s action with prejudice on May 31, 1983. Both the combined motion for extension and reconsideration and the district judge’s order granting the motion were filed on June 29, within the initial 30-day filing period prescribed by rule 4(a)(1). However, instead of granting the 30 days allowed by rule 4(a)(5), the judge granted a 60-day extension. On August 29, the district court denied the motion for reconsideration and granted Danon an additional 10 days within which to file his appeal from the dismissal, pursuant to what the district court referred to as “the stipulation.” The stipulation clearly refers to the June 29 order, on which the typed 30-day period was crossed out in ink and replaced by a handwritten “60,” with the notation “by stipulation of parties,” and initialed by the parties and the judge. Thus, Judge Marshall effectively granted a 70-day extension within which Danon could file an appeal from the rule 37 dismissal. Danon filed this notice of appeal on September 6.
A.
The majority concludes that the “unique circumstances” doctrine applies, and that it permits the late appeal. The majority relies on three Supreme Court per curia for this doctrine. In the leading case, Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc., 371 U.S. 215, 83 S.Ct. 283, 9 L.Ed.2d 261 (1962) (per curiam) {Harris Truck), decided under the predecessor to former rule 4(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. 73(a), the appellant moved for an extension during the initial filing period. Rule 73(a) permitted a 30-day extension to the initial filing period if a motion for extension were justified by “excusable neglect based on a failure of a party to learn of the entry of the judgment.” Id. at 217, 83 S.Ct. at 285. The district court found excusable neglect, and granted an extension of approximately two weeks from the end of the initial filing period. The court of appeals reversed the finding of neglect and concluded that, because no excusable neglect was proven, the notice of appeal had been untimely filed and the appeal should thus be dismissed. See id. at 216, 83 S.Ct. at 284. The Supreme Court reversed:
In view of the obvious great hardship to a party who relies upon the trial judge’s finding of “excusable neglect” prior to the expiration of the 30-day period and then suffers reversal of the finding, it [the finding] should be given great deference by the reviewing court. Whatever the proper result as an initial matter on the facts here, the record contains a showing of unique circumstances sufficient that the Court of Appeals ought not to have disturbed the motion judge’s ruling.
Id. at 217, 83 S.Ct. at 285 (emphasis added).
Harris Truck does not provide authority for the reliance argument in this case. It did not address the issue of whether a district court can extend the filing period beyond that allowed by the applicable filing rule. The extension in Harris Truck was well within the 30 days allowed by rule 73(a).
*1273Thompson v. INS, 375 U.S. 384, 84 S.Ct. 397, 11 L.Ed.2d 404 (1964) (per curiam) (Thompson), is equally inapplicable here. Following a final order by the district court, the appellant in Thompson made untimely motions for factual amendments and a new trial according to the terms of rules 52 and 59, Fed.R.Civ.P., then in effect. Id. at 385, 84 S.Ct. at 397. Nevertheless, the district court specifically declared them to be timely. Id. Later, within former rule 73(a)’s time limit from the date on which the district court denied the motions but not from the date of the original order, the appellant filed a notice of appeal. Although the rule 52 and 59 motions were untimely and therefore void, the Supreme Court held that rule 73(a) was satisfied because of the “unique circumstances” of the appellant’s reliance on the district court’s mistake.
Thompson is distinguishable because the district court’s mistake was of a completely different nature than the mistake here. Timely motions for factual amendments and a new trial ordinarily tolled the running of the initial rule 73(a) filing period, as they do under rule 4(a). Thus, the question before the Court in Thompson was not whether the district court could extend the rule 73(a) filing period beyond the mandated extension, but whether rule 73(a) had been triggered at all.
The third Supreme Court case on which the majority relies, Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203, 84 S.Ct. 699, 11 L.Ed.2d 636 (1964) (per curiam) (Wolfsohn), a one-sentence opinion, does not support the majority’s position. The case presented the precise facts of Thompson, which is why the Court needed only one sentence to decide it. Since Thompson is "readily distinguishable from this case, Wolfsohn also is distinguishable. Moreover, the four Justices who dissented in Wolfsohn clearly were disenchanted with the “reliance” argument they had wrought in Harris Truck and wished to confine that case to its peculiar facts. See id. at 203-04, 84 S.Ct. at 699 (Clark, J., dissenting). Since the Court has remained silent on this doctrine for over twenty years, I conclude that these short per curia are a thin reed indeed upon which the majority chooses to rest its use of the “unique circumstances” doctrine. The order from which Danon appealed was not the type of order involved in the Supreme Court cases. Thus, I conclude that the rationale of the per curia does not apply.
B.
It is true, however, that both our circuit and other circuits have applied the doctrine in a variety of circumstances. See California ex rel. Van de Kamp v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 766 F.2d 1316 (9th Cir.1985) (Tahoe), National Industries, Inc. v. Republic National Life Insurance Co., 677 F.2d 1258, 1264 (9th Cir.1982) (National Industries); Hernandez-Rivera v. INS, 630 F.2d 1352, 1353-54 (9th Cir.1980); In re Estate of Butler’s Tire & Battery Co., 592 F.2d 1028, 1031-32 (9th Cir.1979); see also Marane, Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., 755 F.2d 106, 111 n. 2 (7th Cir.1985) (Marane); Myers v. Stephenson, 748 F.2d 202, 205-06 (4th Cir.1984) (Myers); Willis v. Newsome, 747 F.2d 605, 606 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (Willis), Aviation Enterprises, Inc. v. Orr, 716 F.2d 1403, 1406 n. 25 (D.C.Cir.1983) (per curiam) (Orr), Alvestad v. Monsanto Co., 671 F.2d 908, 910-11 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1070, 103 S.Ct. 489, 74 L.Ed.2d 632 (1982) (Alvestad).
Even if the unique circumstances doctrine is an appropriate extension of the Supreme Court per curia, I reject its application in this case. The key element of the doctrine is that the party must demonstrate reasonable reliance on judicial action taken prior to the expiration of the first 30-day period of rule 4(a)(5). See, e.g., Marane, 755 F.2d at 111 n. 2; Willis, 747 F.2d at 606; Orr, 716 F.2d at 1406 n. 25; Alvestad, 671 F.2d at 911.
I cannot agree with a conclusion that an attorney may reasonably rely on a 70-day extension, granted by a district court, when rule 4(a)(5) expressly states that “[n]o such extension shall exceed 30 days.” To do *1274so would be to encourage attorneys to inveigle the district courts into rulings that would ordinarily be erroneous, and then to hide behind the shield of “unique circumstances.” This is not a case in which a district court clerk erroneously informed an attorney that his notice of appeal would be effective when mailed, thus resulting in an appeal that was one day late, see Willis, 747 F.2d at 606; see also Myers, 748 F.2d at 205 (clerk stamped the wrong date on the notice of appeal). Nor is this a case in which the party delayed filing the notice of an appeal pending the entry of a written order that the district court never entered, see Tahoe, 766 F.2d at 1318, or a case in which the party relied on an erroneous district court ruling. See, e.g., National Industries, 677 F.2d at 1264.
This is a case in which the parties and the district court agreed to waive the provisions of rule 4(a)(5) to suit their convenience. Even as a matter of equity, this is not a practice that can be condoned. Both the parties and the court have an obligation to read and follow the rules of appellate procedure. While the “unique circumstances” doctrine may protect instances of inadvertent or good faith, reasonable reliance on a judicial error or omission, it should not be extended to encompass the intentional bypass of a federal rule.
C.
Rule 4(a) was created to promote the policy of providing finality and order to the judicial process. See Selph v. Council of Los Angeles, 593 F.2d 881, 882 (9th Cir. 1979); cf. Matton Steamboat Co. v. Murphy, 319 U.S. 412, 415, 63 S.Ct. 1126, 1128, 87 L.Ed.2d 1483 (1943) (per curiam) (discussing policies of appeals limitation periods). Even if the unique circumstances doctrine is “only a modest incursion” on finality, 4 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1168, at 640 (1969), the majority extends this doctrine too far. The terms of rule 4(a)(5) are “mandatory” as well as jurisdictional. Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 457-58 (9th Cir.1983) (en banc) (Rodgers), cf. Browder v. Director, Department of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 271-72, 98 S.Ct. 556, 564-65, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (rules 52(b) and 59, Fed.R.Civ.P., are mandatory and jurisdictional) (Browder). Thus, we should not increase the scope of any equitable exceptions to the rule absent clear Supreme Court guidance.
Not only does the majority’s result ignore the mandatory and jurisdictional aspects of rule 4(a), it also fails to consider the ramifications of the rule it adopts. If it is true that .the parties and the district court now may stipulate to a 70-day extension, then what will happen when a district court grants an extra 90 days, six months, or one year? Surely at some point the majority’s analysis would conclude that reliance on such- an extension is “unreasonable.” However, the majority opinion leaves us with no principled means of differentiating between reasonable and unreasonable reliance. Thus, we are left with a mere linedrawing exercise, an exercise best left to the legislature or the Rules Committee. In my judgment, however, the Committee already has done so. The “unique circumstances” doctrine as applied by the majority abandons a bright-line rule that would avoid painstaking, unprincipled case-by-case analysis.
Moreover, permitting Danon’s appeal from the dismissal because the district court and the parties entered into a stipulation that violated rule 4(a)(5) would break a cardinal principle of federal jurisdiction: that jurisdiction can be neither conferred nor destroyed by agreement between the parties and the court. See, e.g., Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 377 n. 21, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 2404 n. 21, 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978); American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U.S. 6, 18, 71 S.Ct. 534, 542, 95 L.Ed. 702 (1951). Although I recognize that rule 4(a)(5) does not implicate article III jurisdiction, I believe that sound application of the principles of finality requires an analogous rule. Thus, for the same reasons that neither the parties nor the courts may stipulate to federal question or diversity jurisdiction, I *1275would hold that neither the parties nor the courts may confer or destroy jurisdiction under rule 4(a) by stipulation, promise, or agreement. Cf. United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229-30, 80 S.Ct. 282, 288-89, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960) (reaching same result under old Fed.R.Crim.P. 45(b)). A rule that requires litigants and judges to read the civil and appellate rules and abide by them, rather than choosing those that suit their convenience, is both equitable and logical. I would apply such a rule in this case, and find the “unique circumstances” doctrine inapplicable.
II
I concur in the result reached by Judge Hall, however, because I would affirm Judge Marshall’s order denying Danon’s motion for reconsideration on the dismissal. In so doing, I review the decision on the motion for reconsideration for an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Marane, 755 F.2d at 112; Rodgers, 722 F.2d at 460. A denial of relief under this standard cannot be reversed unless we have a “definite and firm conviction” that the district court committed a clear error of judgment when it considered the relevant factors. See, e.g., Potlatch Corp. v. United States, 679 F.2d 153, 157 (9th Cir.1982).
In her order, Judge Marshall denied Danon’s motion because she did not “believe that counsel has met the requirements of the motion for reconsideration in this case.” She reached this decision after acknowledging that she had considered all the relevant motions and papers.
Danon argues that this bare statement indicates that Judge Marshall did not reach the merits of his motion because she concluded that the motion failed on some preliminary ground. He contends that the failure to reach the merits is equivalent to a failure to exercise discretion and thus is an abuse of discretion. I disagree. A rule 60(b) motion must satisfy the minimum criteria of that rule, i.e., state a recognizable reason for relief, before the district court may evaluate the merits of the motion. See, e.g., Cel-A-Pak v. California Agricultural Labor Relations Board, 680 F.2d 664, 668-69 (9th Cir.1982) (no significant new evidence in motion), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071, 103 S.Ct. 491, 74 L.Ed.2d 633 (1982); National Industries, 677 F.2d at 1270 (insufficient response to a summary judgment motion). Judge Marshall did not abrogate her discretion by first examining the moving papers to determine if Danon had made a request that was legally cognizable under rule 60(b).
In addition, Danon created some confusion by his failure to identify clearly whether he was asserting a rule 60(b)(1) or 60(b)(6) motion. In the motion, he used language suggesting a 60(b)(6) motion for “any other relief.” In his memorandum in support of the motion, however, Danon urged a rule 60(b)(1) theory. Indeed, as late as the filing of his opening brief in our court, he made no choice. Thus, that the order denying the rule 60(b) motion contained some ambiguous language is not surprising based upon the ambiguity generated by Danon’s failure to differentiate between 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6) grounds. In his reply brief and at oral argument, however, Danon conceded that he was asserting a rule 60(b)(6) claim. Therefore, I will review the district court’s ruling under rule 60(b)(6).
Rules 60(b)(6) and 60(b)(1) are not subsets of one another, but apply to mutually exclusive situations. See Transit Casualty Co. v. Security Trust Co., 441 F.2d 788, 792 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 883, 92 S.Ct. 211, 30 L.Ed.2d 164 (1971). Thus, a motion for reconsideration under rule 60(b)(6) requires a showing of extraordinary circumstances not related to inadvertence or neglect already covered in rule 60(b)(1). See Corex Corp. v. United States, 638 F.2d 119, 121 (9th Cir.1981). Unlike the rest of rule 60(b), subdivision (6) is construed harshly against the movant. See id. Danon, therefore, cannot prevail merely by alleging facts that tend to show the error of the original dismissal. See Browder, 434 U.S. at 263 n. 7,98 S.Ct. at 560 n. 7; SEC v. Seaboard Corp., 666 F.2d 414, 416 (9th Cir.1982).
*1276My review of the rule 60(b) moving papers reveals that the essence of Danon’s claim, as stated in the memorandum and declarations, was that Danon personally had nothing to do with his attorney’s misfeasance and should not be penalized for it. Even if true, this is legally insufficient for a rule 60(b)(6) motion. A number of courts have held that in order for a party to prevail under rule 60(b)(6), counsel must have committed at least gross negligence, while his client must not have been neglectful. See, e.g., King v. Mordowanec, 46 F.R.D. 474, 479-80 (D.R.I.1969). Other courts have concluded that gross negligence is an inadequate basis for a rule 60(b)(6) motion. See, e.g., Schwarz v. United States, 384 F.2d 833, 835-36 (2d Cir. 1967); see also Inryco, Inc. v. Metropolitan Engineering Co., 708 F.2d 1225, 1233-34 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 937, 104 S.Ct. 347, 78 L.Ed.2d 313 (1983); 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2864, at 221-23 (1973). We need not decide that issue because even if gross negligence were adequate, Danon has conceded in his moving papers that his counsel’s actions did not rise to the level of gross negligence. Thus, I conclude that Judge Marshall did not abuse her discretion by denying Danon’s rule 60(b) motion because justification for the denial was evident from the moving papers. See, e.g., Standard Newspapers, Inc. v. King, 375 F.2d 115, 116 (2d Cir.1967) (per curiam).