The problem for Hikma/Reddy is that 9th circuit case law allows for exceptions to the rule that non-party can't motion for rule 60(b).
Barring some reason otherwise, qualifying for the fraud exception implies we have standing to motion for rule 60(b) (even ignoring rule 24).
"The Ninth Circuit has held that "[a] nonparty may seek relief from a judgment procured by fraud if the nonparty's interests are directly affected." Eyak Native Village v. Exxon Corp., 25 F.3d 773, 777 (9th Cir. 1994)."
Of course, getting intervention as of right will be the cleanest path in, but I'm just noting there are alternative paths to Rule 60B standing specifically.
"Nonparties who have constitutional standing are often allowed to participate in litigation even if they have not followed the appropriate procedures, such as filing a motion to intervene. In the Ninth Circuit, technical defects in motions for intervention may be overlooked if a court is apprised, other than in a compliant pleading, of the grounds for such intervention."
One thing that has been exercising my mind is that actually any appeal Court (FC)made aware that a judicial decision of a lower court which decision was based on a fraud /mistake perpetrated upon /before the lower court (DC) must - repeat must- act to set aside such a decision -
This must be irrespective of how this comes to the attention of the Appeal court
Let us use a criminal court case by way of example - but let’s keep it simple -
The defendant at trial is convicted of murder - the sole evidence for that trial is confession by the defendant (more than enough to convict) (But that confession was obtained by torture and those who tortured the defendant send written affidavits to the appeal court admitting their torture of the defendant - (there is though no appeal before the appeal court when such admissions are received)
What does the appeal court do ?? — nothing????
Does the court say -Well we have no case before us - (akin to the rule 24 being lost ) yet we the appeal court are now aware that the confession was not true evidence (extracted by torture) - akin to the H expert evidence and K cropped table / not statistically significant and Mori stat error
The Amarin case mirrors this situation
If the judges have read the papers and see the fraud mistake for what it is whether they find Epadi has standing or not are they not duty bound to set aside the DC decision ???
Do the FC judges have no alternative but to act ??? -
Or can they now turn a blind eye to what has taken place and hide behind no standing and thus fail to act ….
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
