• Archives

  • Blog Stats

    • 667,738 hits
  • Categories

Opposition to a motion to vacate judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) in United States District Court

An opposition to a motion to vacate judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) on the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct in United States District Court is the topic of this blog post. The opposition to the motion should be served and filed at least seven (7) calendar days before the hearing unless a Local Rule or order of the Court states otherwise pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(c)(2).

Parties served with a motion to vacate under Rule 60(b)(3) (Rule 60) should carefully review the motion and all supporting documents to determine what grounds exist for an opposition.

Common grounds for opposition to a motion to vacate under Rule 60(b)(3) are:

The motion is untimely in that it is not brought within a reasonable time as required by Rule 60 which states in pertinent part 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.”

The moving party unreasonably delayed in filing the motion.

The moving party has not met their burden of showing that the fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct alleged prevented them from fully and fairly presenting their case.

No meritorious claims or defenses are presented.

Several decisions of the Circuit Courts of Appeal including but not limited to, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have stated that the moving party must meet their burden of showing that the opposing party engaged in fraud, misrepresentation or other misconduct that prevented the moving party from fully and fairly presenting his or her case or defense.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has also stated that a motion under Rule 60 cannot be used to vacate a judgment which is alleged to be factually incorrect.

Other Circuit Courts of Appeal have stated the moving party must show that its claims or defenses are meritorious in order to prevail on the motion.

Several decisions of the Circuit Courts of Appeal including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have stated that the moving party must establish fraud by clear and convincing evidence and a recent decision by a Circuit Court of Appeal stated that the moving party must establish that any alleged misconduct prevented a full and fair presentation of the case.

Attorneys or parties who would like to view a portion of a 12 page sample opposition to a motion to vacate judgment under Rule 60(b)(3) in United States District Court containing brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proof of service by mail sold by the author can see below.

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation.

*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 300 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 http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

You can view other sample legal document packages for sale by visiting: 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.

Advertisements

What is your opinion?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: