867 F.2d at 294; see also Emergency Beacon Corp., 666 F.2d at 758. The difficulty in interpreting subsection (b)(6), and perhaps the reason for the paucity of decisions in this area, arises from the fact that almost every conceivable ground for relief is covered under the first three subsections of Rule 60(b). The “something more,” then, must include unusual and extreme situations where principles of equity mandate relief. Parties seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6), however, must file their motion within a “reasonable” time, which ordinarily depends on the facts of a given case including the length and circumstances of the delay, the prejudice to the opposing party by reason of the delay, and the circumstances compelling equitable relief. See Emergency Beacon Corp., 666 F.2d at 760 (<HOLDING>); In re Pacific Far East Lines, 889 F.2d 242
holding that a california habeas petition is timely if filed within a reasonable time holding that defendant abandoned his motion by failing to pursue it within a reasonable time after it was filed recognizing that an appeal filed within 30 days of the entry of an order awarding attorney fees was timely filed as to the issue of attorney fees holding that order denying motion to vacate restitution order should be reversed where trial judge failed to inform defendant of right to appeal holding that trustees motion to vacate order authorizing debtor in possession to issue certificates of indebtedness filed twentysix months after entrance of order was filed within a reasonable time