and in discounting as self-serving and unreliable Lomaz’s bald assertions based on .memories of circumstances existing thirteen years ago. See Marziliano v. Heckler, 728 F.2d 151, 156 (2d Cir.1984) (stating that deference is given to the district court’s decision on whether to set aside a default judgment unless it is “clearly wrong”). Appellant’s other claims under Rule 60(b) are forfeited or time-barred. Pacific concedes that it did not raise in the district court a defense under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) or a defense based on lack of personal jurisdiction due to insufficient contacts to the forum state. Thus these defenses are considered forfeited on appeal. See Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 703, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982) (<HOLDING>); Beller & Keller v. Tyler, 120 F.3d 21, 24 (2d
holding that under the fsia personal jurisdiction equals subject matter jurisdiction plus valid service of process holding that personal jurisdiction is not required to make an outofstate parent a party to custody action where the state court has subject matter jurisdiction under the uniform child custody jurisdiction act holding that unlike subject matter jurisdiction personal jurisdiction may be waived holding that subject matter questions may be but are not necessarily decided before questions of personal jurisdiction holding issues related to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time