862 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2017), 15-15799, United States v. Sierra Pacific Industries, Inc.
|Citation:||862 F.3d 1157|
|Opinion Judge:||Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES, INC.; W.M. BEATY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.; ANN MCKEEVER HATCH, as trustee of the Hatch 1987 revocable trust; RICHARD L. GREENE, As Trustee of the Hatch Irrevocable Trust; BROOKS WALKER, JR., as Trustee of the Brooks Walker, Jr. Revocable Trust and the Della Walker Van Loben Sel|
|Attorney:||William R. Warne (argued), Meghan M. Baker, Annie S. Amaral, and Michael J. Thomas, Downey Brand LLP, Sacramento, California; Jennifer T. Lias and Richard W. Beckler, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Washington, D.C.; for Defendants-Appellants Sierra Pacific Industries, Inc. Richard S. Linkert (argued) ...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judge, and Jon P. McCalla,[*] District Judge.|
|Case Date:||July 13, 2017|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
The United States brought a civil action against private forestry operators and other individuals to recover damages for a forest fire that broke out on private property near the Plumas National Forest in northern California (The Moonlight Fire). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendants' motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3). The panel held... (see full summary)
Argued and Submitted, San Francisco, California May 17, 2017.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02445-WBS-AC. William B. Shubb, Senior District Judge, Presiding.
Fraud on the Court / Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(d)(3)
The panel affirmed the district court's denial of defendants' motion for relief from judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(d)(3) based on allegations of fraud, following a settlement in a civil action brought by the United States against private forestry operators and individuals to recover damages for the Moonlight Fire that burned portions of the Plumas and Lassen National Forests in 2007.
The defendants argued that the government's alleged misrepresentations throughout the investigation and litigation constituted fraud on the court. The defendants also alleged newly-discovered fraud after the settlement.
The panel held that a finding of fraud on the court is reserved for material, intentional misrepresentations that could not have been discovered earlier, even through due diligence. The panel held that the district court properly concluded that Sierra Pacific Industries, Inc. did not demonstrate fraud on the court regarding any of the alleged fraud it discovered before settlement. The panel further held that none of the allegations of after-discovered fraud, either individually or as a whole, established that the government committed fraud on the court within the meaning of Rule 60.
The panel rejected defendants' argument that the district court judge was required to recuse himself under Canon 3C of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges and 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) because of an appearance of bias created by activity on a Twitter account that did not bear the judge's name, but was allegedly controlled by him. The panel reviewed the allegations for plain error because defendants failed to first raise the issue before the district court. Specifically, the panel held that the claim -- that an unknown Twitter account, not identified with a judge or the judiciary, followed a public Twitter account maintained by the U.S. Attorney -- did not provide a basis for recusal. The panel further held that the fact that the Twitter account followed the U.S. Attorney did not mean that the public tweets published by the U.S. Attorney constituted improper ex parte communications. Finally, the panel rejected defendants' allegation that the judge's action in tweeting the link to an allegedly erroneous news article required reversal. The panel concluded that retroactive recusal of the district court judge was not warranted, and vacatur of the district court's order was also unwarranted.
William R. Warne (argued), Meghan M. Baker, Annie S. Amaral, and Michael J. Thomas, Downey Brand LLP, Sacramento, California; Jennifer T. Lias and Richard W. Beckler, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Washington, D.C.; for Defendants-Appellants Sierra Pacific Industries, Inc.
Richard S. Linkert (argued) and Julia M. Reeves, Matheny Sears Linkert & Jaime, Sacramento, California; Phillip R. Bonotto, Rushford & Bonotto LLP, Sacramento, California; for landowner Defendants-Appellants.
David T. Shelledy (argued), Matthew D. Segal, and Kelli L. Taylor, Assistant United States Attorneys; United States Attorney's Office, Sacramento, California; for Plaintiff Appellee.
Julie A. Weis, Haglund Kelley LLP, Portland, Oregon, for Amicus Curiae Michael Cole and Tom Hoffman, Retirees of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. and Blaine H. Evanson, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, California; Katherine C. Yarger, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Denver, Colorado; Stephen S. Schwartz and Daniel Z. Epstein, Cause of Action Institute, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae Cause of Action Institute.
Parker Douglas, Utah Federal Solicitor, and Sean D. Reyes, Attorney General, Utah Attorney General's Office, Salt Lake City, Utah; Mark Brnovich, Attorney General, United States Attorney's Office, Phoenix, Arizona; Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General, United States Attorney's Office, Carson City, Nevada; Doug Peterson, Attorney General, Attorney General's Office, Lincoln, Nebraska; Brad D. Schimel, Attorney General, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Madison, Wisconsin; for Amici Curiae Attorney Generals for the States of Arizona, Nebraska, Nevada, Utah, and Wisconsin.
Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judge, and Jon P. McCalla,[*] District Judge.
THOMAS, Chief Judge
We are asked to decide whether certain allegations of fraud, some of which were known before the parties settled and some of which came to light after settlement, rise to the level of fraud on the court such that relief from the settlement agreement is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3). Because the instances of alleged fraud known before settlement cannot justify relief, and the instances discovered after settlement do not rise to the level of fraud on the court under Rule 60(d)(3), we affirm.
This case arises from a forest fire that broke out on private property near the Plumas National Forest in northern California on September 3, 2007. The Moonlight Fire, as it came to be known, eventually burned 46,000 acres of the Plumas and Lassen National Forests and resulted in the United States bringing a civil action against private forestry operators, Sierra Pacific Industries, Inc. (" Sierra Pacific" ) and Howell's Forest Harvesting Company (" Howell" ), and other individuals to recover damages for that fire.
Sierra Pacific contracted with Howell to conduct logging operations on the land where the Moonlight Fire is believed to have started. On the morning of the fire, two Howell employees had been operating bulldozers in the area, but they left without inspecting the site for sparks or signs of fire.
After the fire was spotted from a U.S. Forest Service (" Forest Service" ) lookout tower in the early afternoon, Forest Service investigator Dave Reynolds visited the site where the fire was believed to have started. Reynolds interviewed JW Bush, one of the Howell employees who had been working at the site that morning, but the site was too hot to investigate further at the time.
Reynolds returned to the site the following day with Josh White, an investigator from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (" Cal Fire" ). According to the Origin and Cause Investigation Report jointly released by the Forest Service and Cal Fire, that day the investigators identified a " general origin area" and a " specific origin area" based on fire indicators in the area. On September 4th and 5th, White and Reynolds took numerous photos and measurements of relevant points within the origin site, and they placed numbered markers and colored flags to mark certain fire indicators and other evidence.
Sierra Pacific and the other defendants allege that White and Reynolds identified a specific point of origin that they marked with a single white flag, and took measurements and photographs of that point. The government denies that the investigators identified this point as the specific point of origin. Instead, the government notes that the investigators took photos of two other rocks, which appeared to have...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP