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.

3. Should a pro se litigant under such extraordinary circumstance, who is blameless, be penalized for her former counsel’s egregious negligence?

4. 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?