Whether refusal of California Court of Appeal to vacate a judgment procured by fraud upon the court violated the right to due-process, civil-procedure, standing

QUESTION PRESENTED ; | Question Presented No. 1 California Court of Appeal held that attorney misrepresentations that prevented the other party from fully presenting her claim at trial did not : | constitute misconduct because the attorney bore a burden to prove a defense | to another claim. The first question presented is: Whether refusal of California Court of Appeal to vacate a judgment procured by fraud upon the court violated the right to due process of law of the party who was prevented from fully presenting her claim by the fraud. Question Presented No. 2 . California Court of Appeal, based on numerous mistakes of significant facts, rejected, without reaching their merit, most of petitioner’s arguments raised in her brief. The appellate court found that “appellant’s arguments are : generally undeveloped and difficult to follow’, also indicated that the record was complicated, however in oral argument, which was provided as a matter of right by the rules of the state court, the court told petitioner that : ' it did not have any questions for her. The second question presented is: Where rules of the court provides that oral argument is an ; indispensable part of a hearing of an appeal, whether there is a violation of due process of law when such oral argument is not provided by the virtue of . ii no effort from the court to hear the arguments and the parties to the appeal are not notified.