No. 20-394

David Alan Schum v. Fortress Value Recovery Fund I, L.L.C., et al.

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-09-25
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: civil-procedure federal-rules-of-civil-procedure fraud-on-court fraud-on-the-court judicial-precedent officers-of-the-court rule-60 stare-decisis time-bar
Key Terms:
Securities Patent
Latest Conference: 2020-12-04
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a claim brought under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(d)(3) as a result of fraud on the court can be time-barred

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

Questions Presented . The questions presented are: 1. Whether a claim brought under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(d)(3) as a result of fraud on the court by attorneys who are sworn officers of the court can be timebarred or as a result of the fraud on the court does Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(d)(3) take precedence over all other rules with time-bars. 2. Whether it violates the doctrine of Stare Decisis when a Federal Court arbitrarily establishes a non-specified time bar to a claim brought under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(d)(3) in conflict with Supreme Court and Circuit Court precedent. i y oe

Docket Entries

2020-12-07
Petition DENIED.
2020-11-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/4/2020.
2020-11-05
Reply of petitioner David Alan Schum filed. (Distributed)
2020-10-23
Brief of respondents Lawrence s. Goldberg and Schulte Roth & Zabel, L.L.P. in opposition filed.
2020-10-21
Waiver of right of respondent Fortress value Recovery Fund I, LLC, et al. to respond filed.
2020-09-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 26, 2020)

Attorneys

David Alan Schum
David A. Schum — Petitioner
David A. Schum — Petitioner
Fortress value Recovery Fund I, LLC, et al.
Matthew Walter MoranVinson & Elkins L.L.P., Respondent
Matthew Walter MoranVinson & Elkins L.L.P., Respondent
Lawrence s. Goldberg and Schulte Roth & Zabel, L.L.P.
Michael Lewis CookSchulte Roth & Zabel LLP, Respondent
Michael Lewis CookSchulte Roth & Zabel LLP, Respondent