Detailed Analysis of a Rule 60(b) Motion in a Custody Case

This document provides a detailed analysis of a Rule 60(b) motion to vacate an order modifying child custody. It examines the legal arguments presented, focusing on the requirements for granting relief, such as newly discovered evidence, due diligence, and the absence of unfair prejudice to the opposing party. The analysis highlights the plaintiff's unsuccessful attempts to meet these requirements, including the rejection of claims based on discriminatory motives and the inadmissibility of cumulative or fabricated evidence. The document also addresses the procedural aspects of the motion, such as the timeliness of the claim and the plaintiff's failure to authenticate documents. It concludes with a proposed order to reject the plaintiff's motion summarily, emphasizing the court's role in evaluating arguments and evidence. The report references relevant case law and legal principles, including the standards for demonstrating the materiality of new evidence and the potential impact of the motion on the defendant's rights, including the preclusion of appellate reconsideration. The document also includes an affidavit and bibliography.

Running head: DRAFTING
DRAFTING
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

1
DRAFTING
OPPOSITION TO RULE 60 (B)
The relief that is provided under Rule 60(b) is the unique remedy that is implicated on
presenting an extraordinary situation. In the case of Compton vs. Alton S.S. Co., 608 F.2d 96 (4th
Cir 1979) Rule 60 (b) as laid down in Civil Procedure Rules has implemented the federal court
with authority in the limited situation for vacating the judgment in case the act is proper to
achieve justice. In the case, the motion is nothing further than a request that the judge of the
District Court reversed his mind which is not sanctioned by Rule 60 (b).
The consideration of motion 60 (b) progress in two parts1. The motion first establishes
timeliness the claim that is meritorious a deficit of unreasonable bias to contrasting party in
addition to that unique circumstances. The Plaintiff implicates Rule 60 (b) that regulates the
relief standards from judgment on the ground of novel evidence that is discovered. The relief in
order to be granted under Rule 60 (b)(2) it must demonstrate that the
1. there is newly discovered evidence since the passing of judgment.
2. There is an exercise of due diligence on the side of movant for making the discovery of
novel evidence that has been practised
3. The evidence that is discovered is not just impeaching or cumulative
1 McWilliams, Carey, Matt S. Meier, and Alma M. García. North from Mexico: The Spanish-
Speaking People of the United States: The Spanish-Speaking People of the United States. ABC-
CLIO, 2016.

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.

3
DRAFTING
inadmissible of past evidence and any new evidence that is established must be made in
pursuance of exercising due diligence in this regard. Thus the evidence put forward by the
plaintiff is concocted and is liable to be dismissed. In addition to that the relief that is granted
under Rule 60 (b) creates unfair prejudice to the rights of the defendants by permitting the
plaintiff to reinvent liability theory that would impossible to prosecute.
That the new evidence that is produced by the plaintiff does nor fulfil the essential
criteria that are required for relief as under Rule 60 (b) as because it is held to be neither
materialistic nor probable to alter the impact3. The motion of the plaintiff has been unsuccessful
at the very outset as because of the fact that the new evidence is ineffective.
That the evidence of the plaintiff that is newly discovered is neither considered to be
evidence nor new. Apart from the theory laid by the plaintiff the motion as underline in Rule 60
(b) (2) fails as because the evidence is cumulative, inadmissible of past evidence and in the
occasion the discovery of evidence is made in exercising due diligence. The evidence placed by
the plaintiff is not novel as it could have established in due diligence.
That the plaintiff fails to content that the exhibits that are attached herewith with the
motion are held to be self-authenticating and it is also obvious from the surface of exhibits that
are attached by the plaintiff at the time of filing the suit. The attempt initiate by the plaintiff to
make authentication of the documents that are attached herewith the motion through the attorney
declaration in the case. The declaration made by the attorney may be adequate in some situation
to validate the discovery that is produced by the litigation especially that discovery that is created
3 Moftakhari, Hamed R., et al. "Increased nuisance flooding along the coasts of the United States
due to sea level rise: Past and future." Geophysical Research Letters 42.22 (2015): 9846-9852.

4
DRAFTING
from files of opposing parties. The counsel who appeared on behalf of the plaintiff failed to
determine the private information that is adequate to validate the documents that are alleged to
have been obtained from the third parties, for instance, the documents that are identified in the
motion application of the plaintiff.
In the case of Orr vs. Bank of Am., Nt Sa, 285 F. 3d 764, 772 (9th circuit 2002) there is
the rejection of the declaration put forward by the attorney that seeks to validate the documents
for the deficit of having personal knowledge.
That it is alleged that the defendant would undergo unfair prejudice in case of relief as
prayed by the plaintiff under Rule 60(b) is granted in his favour4. Thus it is finally held that relief
claimed under Rule 60(b) is improper where it is identified that there is unfair prejudice to the
opposing party by invoking the rule.
In addition to the unfair prejudice, the defendant will be foreclosed from the appellate
reconsideration of the decision of the court .
PROPOSED ORDER
Thus it can be concluded that Rule 60(b) motion of the plaintiff must be rejected
summarily. The passing report made by the plaintiff in regard to restricted discovery for
supplementing the record for enabling the court to review its previous ruling. The court has no
responsibility to design the arguments on behalf of the party or to develop the argument of the
party when is unexplained, conclusory and unadorned using quotation regarding legal authority.
4 Zelizer, Viviana A. Rotman. Morals and markets: The development of life insurance in the
United States. Columbia University Press, 2017.

5
DRAFTING
DATED respectfully submitted

6
DRAFTING
AFFIDAVIT
I/We the parents of a citizen of the residents after sworn duly in pursuance to the legislation do
hereby state and depose that
1. That I am defendant of the abovementioned case of the case and I am fully acquainted
with the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. That the statement made above are true to my knowledge and the rest are my humble
submission before the ld.court.

7
DRAFTING
Bibliography
McWilliams, Carey, Matt S. Meier, and Alma M. García. North from Mexico: The Spanish-
Speaking People of the United States: The Spanish-Speaking People of the United States. ABC-
CLIO, 2016.
Born, Gary B., and Peter B. Rutledge. International civil litigation in United States courts.
Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2018.
Moftakhari, Hamed R., et al. "Increased nuisance flooding along the coasts of the United States
due to sea level rise: Past and future." Geophysical Research Letters 42.22 (2015): 9846-9852.
Zelizer, Viviana A. Rotman. Morals and markets: The development of life insurance in the
United States. Columbia University Press, 2017.