Diane S. Blodgett, et al. v. United States

I. Did the court of appeals err in this FTC Act Sect. 13(b) case in failing to apply Rule 60(b) at the pleading stage, by not analyzing the Motion and all Exhibits at­ tached cumulatively - to find no clear and convincing evidence of “exceptional circumstances” - thus failing to apply controlling standards from this Court: per Hazel Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford Empire Co., 322 US 238 (1944); Octane Fitness v. Con. Health & Fitness, 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014), as to pleading government con­ spiracy Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 US 544 (2007); and from its own ruling in Therasense v. Becton Dickinson, 649 F. 3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011 en banc) and Boise Cascade Corp. v. United States, 296 F. 3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2002) sufficient to push the December 2017 Rule 60(b) Motion over the threshold plausibility pleading stage? II. Did the court of appeals err in finding: no contract; certain assets never turned over; no property rights of any kind including ERISA; and thus no Fifth Amend­ ment “takings without just compensation” despite this Court’s holdings in: Lynch v. United States, 292 US 571 (1934); Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan ATV Corp., 458 US 419 (1982); US v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 420 US 223 (1974); Patterson v. Shumate, 504 US 753 (1992) (ERISA); Horne v. Dept, of Agriculture, 135 S. Ct. 2419 (2015) (Fifth Amendment “takings” when made to pay to stay in lawful business); Thole v. US Bank, 590 US__ (2020) (ERISA defined benefit stand­ ing to sue fiduciary); Liu v. SEC, 591 US__ (June 22,