Bahar Mikhak v. University of Phoenix, Inc.
Fraud on the Court:
Plaintiff discovered fraudulent and material
misrepresentation perpetrated by the opposing party.
However, the district court issued an order to
suppress new submissions from both parties, and it
denied Plaintiff relief from the judgment and a new
trial under FRCP 60(b)(3).
1. Was the Ninth Circuit 's holding wrong for
departing from its own precedent and creating
a conflict with other circuits over the
application of the "clear and convincing
evidence " standard by not granting a new trial?
2. Is a pro se litigant entitled to protection of her
right to Procedural Due Process after a
discovery of Fraud on the Court?
Egregious negligence of counsel:
Plaintiff did not participate in the delay tactics of
her counsel and after she became convinced that they
had abandoned her, lied to her, and were refusing to
correct their mistakes/omissions in the record, she
parted ways with them.
1. Should a pro se litigant under such
extraordinary circumstance, who is blameless,
be penalized for her former counsel 's egregious
negligence?
2. Was the Ninth Circuit 's holding correct that
the district court 's denial of relief under FRCP
60(b)(6), despite Plaintiffs extraordinary
circumstance, did not warrant relief from the
judgment?
Dismissal with prejudice is a harsh sanction:
The Ninth Circuit will create an intolerable
conflict among the nation 's lower courts if its decision
is not corrected immediately.
1. What is the appropriate standard of review to
protect parties from unjustified and harsh
rulings under FRCP 41(b), for dismissal of an
entire civil cause of action with prejudice?
2. Should a pro se litigant be allowed excusable
delay, knowing the judgment will be final and
binding, if she did not feel safe to initiate
arbitration with an opposing counsel who had
defrauded the court during trial?
Was the Ninth Circuit's holding wrong for departing from its own precedent and creating a conflict with other circuits over the application of the 'clear and convincing evidence' standard by not granting a new trial?