9. What is the best way for the defendant to seek relief from the judgment?

The federal court system applies the final judgment rule. The basic concept is that an appeal is allowed only after all the issues involved in the suit have been finally determined by the trial court. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 60(b), after a judgment has been entered, a party may be entitled to have the judgment voided on several grounds: (i) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (ii) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time for a new trial; (iii) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (iv) the judgment is void; (v) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; or (vi) any other reason that justifies relief.

Under FRCP 60(b)(2), the court may relieve a party from a final judgment or order based on newly discovered evidence that by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial. This motion must be made within a reasonable time not to exceed one year. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).

Most jurisdictions will allow the trial judge to set aside a verdict as against the weight of the evidence, and order a new trial. Under FRCP 59, a motion for a new trial must be filed no later than 28 days after the judgment is entered. The court may grant a new trial because of an error during the trial (usually going to the admissibility of evidence or the propriety of the instructions), because the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (limited to cases where the judge finds the verdict seriously erroneous), because of juror misconduct, or because the verdict is excessive or inadequate.

Both state and federal trial courts have wide discretion to grant a motion for a new trial. The FRCP set two different standards for granting new trials: one for jury trials, and another standard for non-jury cases. When there has been a jury trial, the judge may order a new trial for any reason for which a new trial as been granted in an action at law in federal court under FRCP 59(a)(1). When the action was tried without a jury, a new trial may be granted for any of the reasons an equity court would have granted the hearing, under FRCP 59(a)(2).

C is correct. The court may relieve a party from a final judgment or order for fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party. In this case, the plaintiff presented evidence that she would be permanently paralyzed. Two months later, the plaintiff was seen jogging. This question asks what is the defendant's best chance at relief. In order to obtain relief from a final judgment, the defendant would have to prove one of the circumstances listed above. If the plaintiff was seen jogging after she presented evidence that she was permanently paralyzed, there is a good chance that the plaintiff only proved her case through fraud. If the defendant can prove fraud, he would be able to seek relief from the judgment. (Note: If the defendant moves for relief from the judgment on the ground that the plaintiff committed fraud, it will still be up to the judge to actually decide if this was fraud or to have a hearing on the matter.)

A is incorrect. A motion for a new trial must be filed no later than 28 days after the judgment is entered. In this case, more than 28 days have passed. Further, as explained above, submitting evidence of the plaintiff's fraud would be a better way to obtain relief from judgment.

B is incorrect. A jury's mistaken belief is not one of the grounds listed in the Federal Rules under which a party may seek relief from a final judgment or order.

D is incorrect. Newly discovered evidence is a ground, listed in the Federal Rules, under which a party may seek relief from a final judgment or order. However, the evidence must be of the sort that could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial. In this case, the plaintiff presented evidence that she was permanently paralyzed. The fact that she was not actually paralyzed is not «new evidence,» rather it was a fraud.