This report, which was prepared for the standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure’s subcommittee on attorney admissions, summarizes when and where federal district courts require local counsel to participate in litigation and attorney admissions to the district courts’ bars.

This package of materials was transmitted to the U.S. Supreme Court on October 23, 2023, concerning amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure to become effective on December 1, 2024.

This contains proposed amendments to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 32, 35, and 40 and appendix on length limits; Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 1007, 4004, 5009, 7001, and 9006, new rule 8023.1, and all restyled rules; Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12; and Federal Rules of Evidence 613, 801, 804, and 1006 and new rule 107.

Additional information about these amendments is available at Amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure (webpage).

Information about rules amendments and the rule-making process is available on uscourts.gov at United States Courts Rules & Policies.

This package of materials was transmitted to Congress on April 24, 2023, concerning amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure to become effective on December 1, 2023.

Amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure are as follows:

• Amendments to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 2, 4, 26, and 45.
• Amendments to Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 3011, 8003, and 9006 and new rule 9038.
• Amendments to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, 45, and 56 and new rule 62.
• Amendments to Federal Rules of Evidence 106, 615, and 702.

Additional information about these amendments is available on the Federal Judicial Center’s website at Amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure (webpage).

Information about rules amendments and the rule-making process is available on uscourts.gov at United States Courts Rules & Policies.

Motion to Set Aside

In this case, a motion to set aside judgment under Rule 60(b) was denied for failure to raise material disputed fact. The party must show evidence of a disputed material to support a motion to set aside a judgment based on newly discovered evidence.

Holding

The appellate court affirmed district court’s denial of motion to set aside judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) without holding evidentiary hearing.

Facts

In Saada I,^[1] the district court found that the mother removed the parties’ child from the child’s habitual residence in Italy. That decision was affirmed in part and vacated in part by the Second Circuit in Saada II.^[2] The Second Circuit found that the performance of the undertakings by the father could not be guaranteed. The case was remanded for the district court to conduct further proceedings and determine whether alternative ameliorative measures could be adopted to ensure the child’s safety upon return to Italy. On remand in Saada III^[3] the district court again ordered the child returned to Italy, based upon rulings by an Italian court including a stay-away order, mandatory psychological evaluations, and providing the mother compensation for expenses incurred because of the need to relocate to Italy. The Second Circuit affirmed (Saada IV).^[4] Shortly thereafter the mother filed a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) to set aside the judgment based upon evidence that the father did not intend to comply with the Italian court’s orders—the basis for the district court’s ameliorative measures for the child’s return. The district court denied the mother’s motion without granting her request for an evidentiary hearing.

Discussion

The Second Circuit held that a party is not automatically entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a motion to set aside a judgment. The district court was well within its discretion to deny the motion because there was insufficient evidence raising a dispute concerning a material fact. In addition, the district court noted that even if the grounds for the motion were known at the time of trial, these facts would not have changed the court’s judgment. The Second Circuit stayed the judgment denying the Rule 60(b) motion pending a decision on the mother’s petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.^[5]