United States v. Sierra Pacific Industries, Inc.

Defendant could not get a settlement agreement invalidated by claiming plaintiff United States had committed fraud on the court, since the later-discovered information on which defendant relied either didn’t show fraud at all or only filled in details of fraud that defendant suspected before it settled.  The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s Rule 60(b) motion which claimed that the United States had committed fraud on the court which led to the settlement in which defendant agreed to pay $55 million for the 2007 Moonlight wildfire.  Fraud that defendant knew about before it settled couldn’t be a proper basis for its motion.  The settlement agreement waived any right to set the settlement aside based on later discovered information.  And the later discovered information either didn’t show fraud at all or only filled in details of fraud that defendant suspected before it settled.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Thomas, C.J.); July 13, 2017; 2017 WL 2979765

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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