On that date, the main thing that will be argued, will be standing and Rule 24 Intervention. We do not even get to Rule 60 if we do not first clear the hurdles of standing and the right to intervene. Not sound like I am legal hair-splitting, but we have standing to file this appeal due to having our filing in Nevada denied, but the subject matter of the appeal itself is to determine if we have standing to file for the Rule 60 relief.
That said, we have pushed in our papers that the Court wrap everything up here and now, meaning, that the Court should find that there is standing, that we can intervene pursuant to Rule 24, and that the Judgment needs be vacated pursuant to Rule 60. Our adversaries, both below and on this appeal, argue that the Court should and can only address standing/Rule 24, while not even reaching or ruling upon Rule 60.
They explicitly state in their papers that if the Court reverses on standing/Rule 24, then the case needs to be remanded back to Nevada for the District Court to adjudicate Rule 60.
While a win on standing/Rule 24, and a remand back to Nevada to adjudicate Rule 60 is well within the range of outcomes, and would constitute a huge victory, our best case scenario is that the Court vacates the Judgement pursuant to Rule 60 at the Federal Circuit level. Our expressed view--and really the objectively reasonable view--is that our adversaries should not be able to dictate the agenda of the Court by unilaterally ignoring the crux of our application.
Likewise, the fact that Judge Du followed their misguided path, should not dictate the agenda of the appellate court. They have the discretion to rule on the whole ball of wax. We respectfully request that they exercise that discretion, by reversing the unjust, inappropriately obtained Judgment.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
