Dimitritza Toromanova v. Summit Real Estate Services, LLC, et al.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d), as amended, provides: “This rule does not limit a court’s power to: (1) entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding (3) set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.” The questions presented for review here are: Did the doctrine of Claim Preclusion as practiced in the Ninth Circuit preclude a party from asserting the right to file a complaint as an independent action in the United States district court for relief in the kind of independent action provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(d), as amended? Did the appellate panel err by basing its final decision on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) instead of the 2007 amended version of that Rule which created Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)? If the court clerk invites a pro se party on appeal to submit a brief in the court’s informal format and that pro se party does so, was the appellate panel justified by then basing their decision at least partly on “matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett u. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009), a case which did not involve an informal brief. 1 See Appendix, Memorandum, second page.