2
DRAFTING
4. It is materialistic evidence
5. The evidence is in such manner that is probable to create a novel impact if the suit was
retried or there is a requirement for the amendment of the judgment that is passed in the
suit.
MEMORANDUM
The plaintiff in the case had been unsuccessful in each stage of the analysis of Rule 60
(b). the theory discriminatory motive that is unprecedented has been unsuccessful and henceforth
they failed to establish the claims on merits they fail to reveal the new materials that are
materialistic and also unsuccessful in showing that the novel evidence would generate the
diverse outcome2. The new evidence based on the merits of the case would not show animus that
is discriminatory and even though it does it has nothing literally to do with the actual theory that
is placed by the Plaintiff that the decision of Secretary was made for depressing the response of
immigrant.
Furthermore, the Court disallowed the version that is less attenuated of the similar
imputed animus Plaintiff’s argument that is forwarded it establishes no equal violation
safeguards though the plaintiff adduced evidence in this regard.
That it is argued the plaintiff underneath the merits has been unsuccessful to meet the
requirement as underlined in Rule 60(b) and it is legitimate to deny granting of motion on that
grounds. Furthermore the novel evidence that is produced by the plaintiff is cumulative,
2 Born, Gary B., and Peter B. Rutledge. International civil litigation in United States courts.
Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2018.

+13062052269

info@desklib.com

Drafting - Opposition to Rule 60(B)

Contribute Materials

Related Documents