Cut to the to the bottom line, our case is so easy to understand. Just simply compare the cropped Table in Defendants' Post-Trial Proposed Findings of Fact, with the cropped Table copied directly into the Court's Opinion (and relied upon by the Court), with the actual uncropped Table in the Kurbayashi article.
The visual evidentiary contrast is irrefutable, and the mockery of our presentation of this evidence, is completely misplaced. As an added benefit, and most germane to our Reply, under Ninth Circuit law, the exposure of fraud is a recognized exception granting a non-party standing to intervene to file a Rule 60 motion.
Defendants deserve to have “the full weight of legal remedies” fall upon them as a party who gets caught with its hand in the proverbial cookie jar “must suffer the known consequences”. Dunkin’ Donuts of America, Inc. v. Middletown Donut Corp., 100 N.J. 166, 180, 185-86, 495 A.2d 66 (1985).
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
