fraud on the court set aside motion us district court eastern district of california judge kimberly...

8/10/2019 Fraud on the Court Set Aside Motion US District Court Eastern District of California Judge Kimberly J. Mueller Judge

1/6

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

ll

12

a 13

a

Q

Q

14

~

15

16

3

~

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DC?WNEYBRAND LLP

WILLIAM .WARNS

SBN

41280)

MICHAEL

.

THOMAS

SBN 172326)

ANNIE

.

AMARAL

SBN

38189)

MEGHAN

M.BAKER SBN

43765)

621 C a p i t o l Mall,

8 t h

Floor

Sacramento,CA

95814-4731

Telephone: 916)

44-1000

F a c s i m i l e :(916) 44-2100

bwarne@downeybrand. om

m t h o m a s downeybrand.

om

[email protected]

[email protected]

BRACEWELL

IULIANILLP

RICHARD

W.

ECKLER

D.C.

Bar

No.

62246

(Pro Hac

i c e

A p p l i c a t i o n Pending)

JENNIFER .

LIAS

V i r g i n i a

Bar

No.

5608

(Pro

Hac

i c e

A p p l i c a t i o n Pending)

2000K t r e e t NW,

u i t e

500

V ~ a s h i n g t o n ,DC

0006-1809

Telephone:

202)

28-5874

F a c s i m i l e : (800)

04-3970

r i c h a r d . b e c k l e r @ b g l l p .eom

j

nni

e r . l i a s @ b l l p .

com

Attorneys o r

Defendant/Cross-Defendant

SIERRA ACIFIC

INDUSTRIES

MATHENY

SEARS

LINKERT

JAIME, LP

RICHARD

.

I~INKERT(SBN 8756)

JULIA

M.

REEVES SBN

41198)

3638 American River

Drive

Sacramento,CA

5864

Telephone:

916)

78-3434

F a c s i m i l e : (916)

78-3430

A t t o r n e y s

For Defendants W.M.

BEATY

ASSOCIATES, NC.AND

ANN MCKEEVER

HATCH,

s

T r u s t e e

o f

h e

Hatch

1 9 8 7

Revocable

T r u s t ,

e t a l .

RUSHFORD ONOTTO,

LP

PH ILLIP R.

BON4TT0

SBN

109257)

DEREKVANDEVIVER SBN 27902)

1010

Hurley Way,

u i t e 410

Sacramento,

CA

5825

Telephone:

916)

65-0590

A t t o r n e y s

f o r Defendant, EUNICE .HOWELL,

INDIVIDUALLY

nd d / b / a

HOWELL'S

FOREST

HARVESTING

UNITEDSTATES

ISTRICT COURT

EASTERNDISTRICT

OF

CALIFORNIA

UNITED

STATES

OF

AMERICA,

P l a i n t i f f ,

v .

SIERRA

ACIFIC

INDUSTRIES,

t

a l .

Defendant.

AND

ALL

RELATED

CROSS

-ACTIONS.

Case

No. 2:09-CV-02445-KJM-EFB

1

1

t'

~

1

t

i

Date:

N o v e m b e r

21,

014

Time:

10:00 a.m.

Dept:

Courtroom

3,

5 t h

f l o o r

Judge:

Hon.

Kimberly . Mueller

13 378].2

DEFENDANTS'

OTICE

OF

MOTIONAND MOTION

TO

SET

ASIDEA JUDGMENT

FOR

FRAUD

ONTHE

COURT

Case 2:09-cv-02445-WBS-AC Document 593 Filed 10/09/14 Page 1 of 6


2/6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

a

a 13

Q

Q 14

~

15

16

Q

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

T

HE

COURT,

LL

ARTIES,

AND

THEIRCOUNSEL OF

RECORD:

PLEASETAKENOTICE h a t

on November 21, 014,

t

10:00 . m . , or a s soon

h e r e a f t e

as

h i s

Court may

r d e r ,

n Courtroom 3,

5 t h f l o o r of

h e

United S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Court,

a s t e r n

D i s t r i c t of a l i f o r n i a ,

l o c a t e d

a t

501 I

S t r e e t ,

Sacramento, a l i f o r n i a

95814,

e f o r e t h e

Honorabl

Kimberly . M u e l l e r , United

S t a t e s

D i s t r i c t Judge, Defendants i e r r a P a c i f i c I n du s t r i e s

( S i e r r a

P a c i f i c ) , W.M.

eaty &Associates,

n c . ;

Ann

cKeever Hatch,

s T r u s t e e

of

h e

Hatch

1987

Revocable r u s t ; L e s l i e

Walker, n d i v i d u a l l y and a s

T r u s t e e

of h e

Brooks Thomas

Walker

r u s t

t h e

Susie Kate

Walker

r u s t ,

and

t h e

Della

Grace

Walker

r u s t s ;

Brooks

Walker,

I I , i n d i v i d u a l l

and as T r u s t e e of h e

Clayton Brooks Danielson, h e Myles

Walker

Danielson,

and

h e

Benjamin

Walker Burlock

T r u s t ,

and

t h e Margaret h a r l o t t e

Burlock T r u s t ;

Wellington

Smith

Henderson,

J r . as

T r u s t e e

of

h e

Henderson

Revocable

T r u s t ;

John

C .

Walker, n d i v i d u a l l y

and

a s T r u s t e e

of

t h e Della Walker

Van.

Loben

S e l s

Trust

o r

t h e i s s u e of

ohn Walker; e n n i f e r Walker,

i n d i v i d u a l l y

and a s

T r u s t e e of

h e Emma

alker

Silverman

Trust

and

t h e Max alker

Silverman

T r u s t ;

Lindsey

Walker,

n d i v i d u a l l y and a s

T r u s t e e

of

h e

R e i l l y

Hud son Keenan

and

Madison

Flanders

Keenan r u s t , aka

Lindsey Walker

-Silverman; Eunice

E. Howell,

n d i v i d u a l l y

and

doing

b u s i n e s s as Howell's o r e s t

Harvesting

Company; harles

C .

Henderson,

s T r u s t e e

of h e

Charles

C .

nd

K r i s t e n

Henderson Revoca ble

T r u s t ;

James

A .

enderson; oan

H .

enderson;

Kirby Wa lker; Brooks

Walker, r . ,

as

T r u s t e e of h e Brooks

Walker, r .

Revocable

Trust

and t h e

Della

Walker

V a n

Loben

S e l s

Trust

o r

t h e I s s u e of rooks

Walker, r . ;

Richard

L.

Greene, s

T r u s t e e of

h e Hatch I r r e v o c a b l e

T r u s t ; Mark W.

enderson,

s

T r u s t e e

of h e Mark W.

Hend erson Revocable r u s t ;

a n d .

Elena

D.

enderson

c o l l e c t i v e l y ,

Defendants )

i l l ,

a nd

hereby do, move o r r e l i e f

from

judgment under FRCP ule 60(d)(3)

nd

under

h e

C o u r t ' s

i n h e r e n t power

o r

f r a u d upon

h e

Court.

This motion s brought on h e grounds

h a t

t h e

United S t a t e s '

p r o s e c u t i o n of

h i s a c t i o n

c o n s t i t u t e d

a

r a u d

upon

h e

Court,

s h e

United S t a t e s a t t o r n e y s and

t h e

Moonlight i r e

i n v e s t i g a t o r s

and

h e i r

c o u n t e r p a r t s

i n

co

-pending t a t e a c t i o n s , o p e r a t i n g

under a

o i n t

p r o s e c u t i o n agreement i t h

t h e United

S t a t e s ,

advanced

a

o r r u p t

and

a i n t e d

p r o s e c u t i o n ,

v i o l a t e d

Defendants'

due r o c e s s

r i g h t s ,

and engaged n

i n v e s t i g a t o r y

and p r o s e c u t o r i a l

1

3837&12

DEFENDANTS

OTICEOFMOTION ANDMOTION TO

ETASIDEAJUDGMENT

FOR

FRAUD ONTHECOURT



3/6

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

ll

12

a

a 13

Q

Q 14

~

15

16

3

Q

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

misconduct

u t l i n e d

more

u l l y

i n t h e

accompanying

Mem oran d u m

o f

o i n t s

and A u t h o r i t i e s

and

s u p p o r t i n g d e c l a r a t i o n s , but which

i n c l u d e d a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s :

p r e s e n t i n g

f a l s e

evidence t o t h e

Defendants

and t h e

Court a n d / o r

c o n c e a l i n g

m a t e r i a l

evidence

from

t h e Defendants

and t h e

Court,

advancing

arguments t o

t h e

Court premised

o n

t h a t f a l s e

e v i d e n c e , or

o r which

m a t e r i a l

evidence had been w i t h h e l d , and

o b t a i n i n g Court u l i n g s

based

t h e r e o n ;

p r e p a r i n g key

Moonlight

F i r e i n v e s t i g a t o r s

f o r

d e p o s i t i o n s ,

and

allowing them

t o

r e p e a t e d l y

give f a l s e testimony about

h e

most important a s p e c t s

of h e i r

i n v e s t i g a t i o n ; and

b y

a i l i n g t o d i s c l o s e t h e

f a c t s

and

circumstances a s s o c i a t e d

with

t h e

Moonlight F i r e l e a d

i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s d i r e c t

f i n a n c i a l i n t e r e s t

i n

t h e

outcome

of

h e

i n v e s t i g a t i o n a r i s i n g from an

i l l e g a l bank

account h a t has

s i n c e

been e x p o s e d .

and

t e r m i n a t e d . This

misconduct

was

p e r p e t r a t e d

b y

f f i c e r s

of h e c o u r t and u l t i m a t e l y

tampered

with t h e

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

of

u s t i c e ,

i n

a

manner h a t

wronged

not

only Defendants, but h i s

Court

a n d .

t h e

p u b l i c .

The

government's misconduc t

compromised

t h e u d i c i a l p r o c e s s

and

amounts

o

an unconscionable scheme

designed

t o

improperly i n f l u e n c e t h e C o u r t ' s

d e c i s i o n s i n t h i s c a s e .

Defendants, h e r e f o r e ,

r e q u e s t

t h a t

i f t h e

Court

i n d s

t h a t

a r a u d

has been


upon t h i s Court, h a t :

t h e Court e t a s i d e t h e

judgment n t h i s c a s e ,

e n t e r e d

o n J u l y 18,

2012; n t e r

a t e r m i n a t i n g

s a n c t i o n d i s m i s s i n g t h e a c t i o n ; s e t a s i d e

t h e Se t t l e m e n t

Agreement n t e r e d between

t h e

p a r t i e s ;

and award

any o t h e r

r e l i e f

t h a t

t h e

Court

deems

u s t and

p r o p e r .

Althou gh D efendants'

o u n s e l .

i s

aware of h e

requirement h a t they

engage

n

a pre-

f i l i n g meet

and c o n f e r t o

d i s c u s s thoroughly t h e

substance o f

h e

contemplated motion

and any

p o t e n t i a l

r e s o l u t i o n ,

Defendants

d i d not

meet and

c o n f e r with

t h e

United S t a t e s

r e g a r d i n g t h e

f i l i n g of h i s motion.

Defendants'

reasons

f o r

t h i s

a r e

t h r e e f o l d . F i r s t , given t h e s u b s t a n c e

of h e

i n s t a n t

motion,

Defendants

b e l i e v e t h a t any

f f o r t

t o

meet and

c o n f e r would

be u t i l e , not

only

because

t h e motion o u t l i n e s f a c t s

showing h a t t h e

very

a t t o r n e y s

with

whom

efendants

would

t h e o r e t i c a l l y

meet

and c o n f e r


a r a u d upon t h e

Court,

but

a l s o because

P l a i n t i f f s

d o

not have

t h e a b i l i t y

or

a u t h o r i t y t o

o f f e r

t h e r e l i e f

t h a t

Defendants seek through t h i s

motion.

That

i s ,

only t h i s Court,

o t h e e x t e n t a r a u d

was


upon

t

and

not h e government,

has

t h e

power

o

s e t a s i d e t h e judgment, e t

a s i d e t h e

S e t t l e m e n t

Agreement,

and d i s m i s s

t h e a c t i o n i n

i t s

e n t i r e t y .

~ 3 a s ~ s i . 2

DEFENDANTS

OTICEOF MOTION

AND MOTION

TO

ETASIDEA

JUDGMENT

OR

FRAUD

ON

THE

OURT



4/6

a

a

Q

d

w

O

Q

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Second, efendants

e l i e v e

t h a t

t

would

n o t

be

p p r o p r i a t e t o

mee t

and

c o n f e r w i t h

l e a d

p r o s e c u t o r

AUSA

e l l i Taylor and o t h e r s

i n t h e United S t a t e s

A t t o r n e y s '

O f f i c e

d u r i n g

t h e

p o t e n t i a l pendency o f n y

n v e s t i g a t i o n t h a t t h e Department

o f

u s t i c e ' s

O f f i c e of

r o f e s s i o n a l

R e s p o n s i b i l i t y ( OPR )

may

hoose o conduct e g a r d i n g

P l a i n t i f f s

i n

t h i s c a s e

and

t h e

r e l a t e d

s t a t e

a c t i o n .

T h i r d ,

and i n a l l y ,

Defendants

d o o t b e l i e v e t h a t i t would be p p r o p r i a t e t o

meet

and

c o n f e r w i t h t h e

f e d e r a l

p r o s e c u t o r s o n h i s motion

because

o f

h e

n a t u r e

of

h e

arguments

c o n t a i n e d

h e r e i n , i n c l u d i n g

c o n c l u s i o n s

r e a c h e d

i n

former AUSA

obert

W r i g h t ' s

D e c l a r a t i o n ,

which

o u t l i n e s

p o t e n t i a l c r i m i n a l l i a b i l i t y

a r i s i n g from

h e

conduct

o f e r t a i n

i n v e s t i g a t o r s

a nd

p r o s e c u t o r s . Defendants

e l i e v e

t h a t they r e

a r g u a b l y

l e g a l l y

p r o h i b i t e d

from s u g g e s t i n g

t o

t h e

f e d e r a l p r o s e c u t o r s t h a t

t h e r e i s

a n y

e l i e f h e

f e d e r a l

p r o s e c u t o r s

c o u l d o f f e r , o r

t h a t t h e r e a r e

a ny

c i r c u m s t a n c e s

under which Defendants would

n o t

f i l e t h e

motion.

F u r t h e r m o r e ,

Defendants

b e l i e v e i t would

be improper o p l a c e

t h e

p r o s e c u t o r s

i n what

o u l d

be

h e

u n t e n a b l e p o s i t i o n of

n e g o t i a t i n g from

t h e

s t a n d p o i n t o f h e i r own

e r s o n a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l

i n t e r e s t s

r a t h e r

t h a n

i n t h e

i n t e r e s t s

o f

h e U n i t e d

S t a t e s .

While Defendants

have p p r o p r i a t e l y

s t y l e d t h i s r e q u e s t

a s a

motion o r r e l i e f

under

Rule

0 ( d ) ( 3 )

n

view

o f

h e C o u r t ' s

r e t a i n e d

j u r i s d i c t i o n

over

h i s a c t i o n ,

t h e

form

i n

which

h e

i n s t a n t

r e q u e s t

f o r

r e l i e f

s

m a d e whether

t

be

a

motion or

a n independent

c t i o n )

s

o f

i t t l e

i m p o r t . Because a o u r t ' s

power

o s e t a s i d e

a

udgmen t o r f r a u d

on

h e c o u r t

a r i s e s

from

t h e

long- r e c o g n i z e d h i s t o r i c

power

i n ]

e q u i t y t o s e t a s i d e

f r a u d u l e n t l y b e g o t t e n judgments, h e

s u b s t a n c e o f

a r t y ' s

f i l i n g

r e l a t e d t o

f r a u d

on h e c o u r t c o n t r o l s

over

t s

form.

Hazel- A t l a s

Glass Co.

.

Hartford

-Empire

C o . , 322 U.S.

238,

45

1944);

I S

v

E s t a t e

o f S t o n e h i l l ,

660 . 3 d

415,

43 9 t h C i r . 2011)

Courts

have

n h e r e n t

e q u i t y

power

o

v a c a t e judgments b t a i n e d by

f r a u d . )

c i t i n g Chamber s

.

NASCO,

n c . ,

501 U.S.

32,

4

1 9 9 1 ) ) ;

U S .

. Buck,

81

F.3d 1336,

1342

10th C i r . 2002) n o purpose

would

be

e r v e d

by

e n y i n g . . , r e l i e f o n

h e ground h a t t h e

motion

m i s s t y l e d

t h e p l e a f o r r e l i e f . . .

t ] h e s u b s t a n c e

o f

h e

p l e a

s h o u l d

c o n t r o l ,

not

h e

l a b e l ) ;

Wright &Miller, ]

ed.

r a c . r o c .

868 3d

e d . )( A p a r t y i s not bound by h e

l a b e l

used

i n t h e p a r t y ' s

p a p e r s . A

otion m a y

be r e a t e d

a s

a n independent c t i o n o r v i c e

v e r s a

as s

138378]2

3

DEFENDANTS

OTICE

OF MOTION

AND

MOTION

TO

SETASIDEA JUDGMENT FOR

FRAUDON

THE

OURT



5/6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

i z

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a p p r o p r i a t e . )

Defendants

u n d e r s t a n d

t h a t any c a r e f u l assessment

of

h e

m a t e r i a l

p r e s e n t e d

w i t h

t h i s

motion w i l l r e q u i r e s i g n i f i c a n t

f o c u s e d

a t t e n t i o n , and

may

a r r a n t t h e

p r e s e n t a t i o n of u r t h e r

t e s t i m o n y

or e v i d e n c e . Defendants

wish

t o

m a k e

kn o w n

t o

t h e

Court h a t

t h e y ,

n c o n c e p t ,

b e l i e v e

t h a t

t h e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s of h i s

motion

m a y w a r r a n t ,

n

t h e

C o u r t ' s

sound d i s c r e t i o n . , t h e

appointment

of

p e c i a l

m a s t e r

under

t h e C o u r t ' s i n h e r e n t

p o w e r a n d / o r under FRCP ule 53.

D e f e n d a n t s ' motion i s

based

on

h i s

n o t i c e

of motion and motion;

m e m o r a n d u m

of o i n t s

a n d

a u t h o r i t i e s ;

d e c l a r a t i o n s of

William

R . W a r n e ,

Robert Wright,

Eu g e n e C h i t t o c k , Richard

L i n k e r t ,

D a n i e l Kim, nd K a t h e r i n e

Und e rwood,

a n d

l l e x h i b i t s

t h e r e t o ; a

r e q u e s t

f o r

u d i c i a l

n o t i c e , a r e q u e s t f o r

l e a v e

t o exceed

p age

i m i t s , a r e q u e s t

f o r l e a v e

t o

f i l e

c e r t a i n m a t e r i a l s

under

s e a l , a n d

a l l p r e v i o u s f i l i n g s

a n d

r e c o r d s

i n

t h i s

a c t i o n

o r

m a t t e r s

of

whic h t h e Court

may a k e

j u d i c i a l

n o t i c e and on such o t h e r m a t t e r s a s

may

e

p r e s e n t e d t o t h e Court t t h e tune

of

e a r i n g

p u r s u a n t

t o

t h i s C o u r t ' s

d i s c r e t i o n . This motion might a l s o

b e

s u p p o r t e d b y Defendants

e x t e n s i v e

f i l i n g w i t h OPR OPR

r i e f ) , which

Defendants

can

p r o v i d e t o t h e

Court

s h o u l d

t h e

Court r e q u e s t t Howeve r,

i v e n

t h e

h i g h l y

s e n s i t i v e

n a t u r e

of

h e

OPR

r i e f ,

and

t h e

p a s s i b i l i t y

t h a t

a n

OPR

n v e s t i g a t i o n

maybe

ngoing, Defend ants have not n c l u d e d

t h a t

b r i e f

w i t h

t h i s

Motion.

Defendants w i l l

d o

so

a s

d i r e c t e d

b y

h i s

C o u r t .

DATED: October 9,

2014

~

:.. ~

/ s / W i l l i a m R. W a y n e

WILLIAM . WARNS

A t t o r n e y s

f o r D e f e n d a n t / C r o s s - D e f e n d a n t

SIERRA

PACIFIC INDUSTRIES

13837812

DEFENDANTS'

NOTICE

OF MOTION

AND

MOTION

TOSETASIDE

A

JUDGMENTFOR

FRAUD

ON

THE COURT



6/6

R

~ .

N

1

2

3

4~

5

6

7

8

9~

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DATED:

ctober 9,

2014 MATHENYSEARSLINKERT

&JAIME

By: / s /

Richard

i n k e r t

(as

auth d

o n 10/8/14

RICHARDLINKERT

Attorneys For Defendants

W.M.BEATY

ASSOCIATES,

NC.

AND

ANN

MCKEEVER

HATCH, s T r u s t e e o f h e

Hatch

1987

Revocable

T r u s t

e t a l .

DATED: ctober 9, 2014

RUSHFORD

ONOTTO,

LP

By:

/ s / P h i l l i p

Bonotto

(as

auth d

o n

10/8/14

PHILLIP

BONOTTO

A t t o r n e y s

f o r

Defendant,

EiINICE

E.

HOWELL,

INDIVIDUALLY

nd d / b / a HOWELL'S

FORESTHARVESTING

1383781.2

DEFEIv DAh

fS NOTICF.OF

MOTION

AND

MOTIONTOSET

ASIDE

A

JUDGMEh TFOR

FRAUD

ONTHECOURT


fraud on the court set aside motion us district court eastern district of california judge kimberly...

Documents