v2768-948

ARGUMENT.

The Court below held the motion of appellant made

imder Rule 60(b) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

to be groundless for the reason that it did not allege

that the order denying vacation of the judgment was

taken against him through his mistake, inadvertence,

surprise or excusable neglect. Furthermore, the appel-

lant makes no other allegations to bring his motion

within the requirements of the rule. In reliance then

on the rule itself, and without the citation of further

authority, because appellee believes, as the Court below

apparently did, that none is required, it is herein as-

serted that appellant is not entitled to the relief for

which he prays.

CONCLUSION.

In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted

that the order of the Court below is correct and should

be affirmed.

Dated, San Francisco, California,

November 14, 1952.

Chauncey Tramutolo,

United States Attorney,

Joseph Karesh,

Assistant United States Attorney,

Attorneys for Appellee.

(Appendix Follows.)

---

archive.org Volume Name: govuscourtsca9briefs2768

Volume: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs2768

Document Link: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs2768#page/n947/mode/1up

Top Keywords (auto-generated):

relief, judg, rules, proceeding, neglect, inadvertence, fraud, excusable, discovered, below, appendix, surprise, review, relieve, reasons

Top Key Phrases (auto-generated):

newly discovered, mistake inadvertence, inadvertence surprise, federal rules, excusable neglect, vobis audita, sic misrepresentation, satisfied released, san francisco, respectfully submitted, prospective applica, pro cedure., personally notified, otherwise vacated, nobis coram

Document Status: UGLY