Shannon Casey v. Albertson's Inc., a Delaware Corporation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a party had waived the Rule 58 requirement that a separate judgment be filed by filing a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, thus indicating her belief that a final judgment had been entered
• requiring that the fraud “‘not be discoverable by 17 due diligence before or during the proceedings’”
• explaining that Rule 60(b)(3) requires that the evidence of fraud be new and previously undiscoverable by due diligence before or during the proceedings in order to justify relief
• stating that decision is not considered final for appeal purposes unless 16 the decision: (1) fully adjudicates the issues and (2) “clearly 17 evidences the judge's intention that it be the court's final act in the matter.”
• denying the moving party’s request for relief from judgment 22 where the fraud was “discoverable by due diligence before or during the proceedings”
• applying “clear and convincing standard” to claims of fraud under Rule 60(b)(3) and concluding that “discovery recalcitrance does not constitute fraud”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).