A Rule 60(b)(3) motion to vacate a judgment in United States District Court is the topic of this blog post.
A Rule 60(b)(3) motion to vacate a judgment in United States District Court is filed on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party.
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.”
Deadline to file a Rule 60(b)(3) motion to vacate a judgment in United States District Court.
It should be noted that 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.”
Requirements for a Rule 60(b)(3) motion to vacate a judgment in United States District Court.
A motion to vacate a judgment on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party is the appropriate motion if you can meet the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that,
The fraud or other misconduct resulted in a verdict against you’
The conduct prevented you from fully and fairly presenting their claim or defense, and
The fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct of the adverse party was not discoverable by due diligence before or during the trial.
“Rule 60(b)(3) “is aimed at judgments which were unfairly obtained, not at those which are factually incorrect.” See De Saracho v. Custom Food Machinery, Inc., 206 F.3d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing In re M/V Peacock, 809 F.2d 1403, 1405 (9th Cir. 1987).
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has ruled that obtaining an arbitration award through perjury is fraud. See Dogherra v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 679 F.2d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 1982) (obtaining an award through perjury is fraud), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 990, 103 S.Ct. 346, 74 L.Ed.2d 386 (1982).
If you have recently become aware of fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct by an adverse party that resulted in a verdict against you and prevented you from fairly presenting your case you should contact an experienced civil litigation attorney as soon as possible.
An experienced civil litigation attorney can evaluate your situation and determine whether filing a motion to vacate a judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) is appropriate.
Nathan Mubasher earned a post-doctorate LL.M. in International Financial Transactions with emphasis on Money Laundering and Compliance at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, a J.D. at American College of Law, and his B.A. at University of California, Riverside. He is a member of the State Bar of California and is admitted to practice before all state and federal courts in California. He is also an active member of the American Health Lawyers Association and the California Society for Healthcare Attorneys. He has performed over 1,000 mediations and has Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) training from the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR).
Contact attorney Nathan Mubasher for a consultation and evaluation of your case.
Schedule a consultation today with attorney Nathan Mubasher.
Call (800) 691-2721 and let’s talk about your options.
CONTACT INFORMATION FOR NATHAN MUBASHER:
Law Offices of Nathan Mubasher
2621 Green River Rd, Ste 105 PMB 403
Corona, CA 92882
tel 1-800-691-2721 | fax 1-310-356-3660
Thank you for reading. I hope I could have been educational as I endeavor to provide my knowledge as a free public service. Please note that all the materials and information on this blog are general analyses made available for the public’s general informational purposes only. These analyses are not in any way intended to serve as specific legal advice to be applied in your particular situation. Although I am an attorney, absent a signed retention and engagement letter, I am not your attorney. There are no exceptions to this rule. Moreover, you shall not rely on the information I am providing you, as it is only for your general knowledge and educational purposes, since this information would likely change based on any additional facts. Thus the transmission and receipt of information on this blog by anyone does not form or constitute an attorney-client relationship. My knowledge of laws is limited to California. Anyone receiving any information on this blog should not act upon the information provided without first obtaining the services of professional legal counsel licensed in their respective jurisdiction. Best of luck.