A motion to vacate a judgment in
United States District Court for fraud,
misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party is the topic of this
blog post. This motion is filed pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(3) (“Rule 60”).
Rule 60 states in pertinent part
that “(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On
motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or
extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.”
Note that the motion must be
filed no later than one year after the entry of the judgment as Rule 60 states
that “(c) Timing and Effect of the Motion. (1) Timing. A motion under Rule
60(b) must be made within a reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3)
no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the
proceeding.”
A motion to vacate a judgment on
the grounds of fraud,
misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party is the appropriate
motion for situations where the moving party can make a very strong showing
that the fraud or other misconduct resulted in a verdict against them, and that
the conduct prevented them from fully and fairly presenting their claim or
defense.
However the “moving party must prove by clear and convincing evidence
that the verdict was obtained through
fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct and the conduct complained of
prevented the losing party from fully and fairly presenting the defense."
Casey v. Albertson's, Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1260 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing De
Saracho v. Custom Food Machinery, Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 2000).
Anyone who becomes aware of fraud,
misrepresentation or other misconduct by an adverse party that resulted in a verdict
against them and prevented them from fairly presenting their case needs to act quickly if they
want to increase the chances of having their motion granted as the law is
settled in the Ninth Circuit and elsewhere that a district court has great
discretion in deciding whether to grant a motion under Rule 60. It is subject
to review only for abuse of discretion.
However the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeal has stated that this rule, like all the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, “is to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of
seeing that cases are tried on the merits.” Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 459
(9th Cir. 1983) (internal citations omitted.)
Attorneys or parties in civil litigation in United States District
Court who wish to view a portion of an 11 page sample motion to vacate a
default judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) containing brief instructions, a
memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory
authority, sample declaration and proof of service sold by the author can use
the link shown below.
*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 245 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit Subscribe to FREE weekly legal newsletter for more information.
Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro
You can view sample legal document packages for sale by going to http://www.legaldocspro.com/downloads.aspx
DISCLAIMER:
Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.
The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.
No comments:
Post a Comment