Eastern District of California Blog

National Blog Reports on EDCA District Judge's Purported Personal Twitter Account

On Monday, the "Above the Law" blog had this piece about the legal squabble over Judge Shubb's purported personal twitter account in the Moonlight Fire civil appeal.

EDCA Court Denies Moonlight Fire Fraud-On-The-Court Motion

In this 63-page Order, Judge Shubb denied the defendants' motion to reopen the Moonlight Fire settlement based on alleged fraud on the court. [added: Sac Bee, 4/17/15].  Here's the court's conclusion:

Defendants made a calculated decision to settle this case almost two years ago, and a final judgment was entered pursuant to their agreement.  To set that judgment aside, the law requires a showing of fraud on the court, not an imperfect investigation.  Defendants have failed to identify even a single instance of fraud on the court, certainly none on the part of any attorney for the government.  They repeatedly argue that fraud on the court can be found by considering the totality of the allegations.  Here, the whole can be no greater than the sum of its parts.  Stripped of its bluster, defendants' motion is wholly devoid of any substance.

 

Moonlight Fire Motion Submitted For Decision

Yesterday, Judge Shubb heard oral argument on the fraud-on-the-court motion to reopen the Moonlight Fire civil case.  He did not rule from the bench; the docket states that a written order would be forthcoming.

Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley's website links to this letter that he and Utah Senator Mike Lee signed, calling on the Department of Justice to investigate the allegations of misconduct at issue in this case.

Defendants File Moonlight Fire Reply Brief

To complete your Moonlight Fire Case fraud motion briefing, the defendants' 121-page supplemental reply brief regarding their fraud on the court motion is available here.  Oral argument is now scheduled for April 13, 2:00 p.m., before Judge Shubb in courtroom 5.

Federal Prosecutors Deny Cover-Up In Moonlight Fire Civil Case

Here is the start of the 2/18 Sacramento Bee story on the government's opposition brief in the Moonlight Fire civil case:

Federal prosecutors in Sacramento have launched a blistering new attack on Sierra Pacific Industries and its lawyers, accusing the timber giant of “deception” and “scandal mongering” in its efforts to reverse a $100 million settlement it agreed to pay over the 2007 Moonlight fire, which burned huge swaths of the Plumas and Lassen national forests.

In more than 3,500 pages of court filings made late Tuesday, prosecutors in the U.S. attorney’s office in Sacramento rejected claims by Sierra Pacific that it was the victim of fraud and corruption by government officials who eventually gained a massive cash and property settlement in 2012 from the company, which was blamed for starting the fire.

 

United States Opposition to Motion To Reopen Moonlight Fire Settlement

The United States filed today this 115-page Opposition with Appendices A,  B, and  C to the defendants' Supplemental Brief in support of their motion to open the civil judgment due to fraud on the EDCA court in the "Moonlight Fire" civil case.  

I just learned of a blog, moonlightfire.net, dedicated to the Moonlight Fire disaster with links to lots of media coverage and key legal briefs.

Media Coverage of EDCA Cases

"Internal Government Document Shows 'Moonlight Fire' Investigators Deliberately Covered Up a Stoned Fire Lookout," National Review Bench Memo

"Is Marijuana Really as Dangerous As LSD and Heroin? Finally, a Welcome Review,"  LA Times Editorial, 1/20/15

"In Ecoterrorist Case, Justice is Thwarted," LA Times Opinion, 1/12/15

Defendants' Revised Supplemental Brief Re Moonlight Fire Fraud Motion

Today, the defendants in the Moonlight Fire case filed this Doc 625-1 Defs Revised Supp Briefing regarding its Rule 60(d)(3) motion to reopen a settlement based on alleged fraud on the court.   Although it's long, 136 pages without tables, the strongly-worded introduction is worth a read.  It accuses Moonlight Investigators of "obstruct[ing] justice, a federal crime that carries a penalty of up to twenty years," and charges that federal attorneys assisted them.  Brief, at 4.  It also includes new, previously redacted information at pages 98, 101-02.

All posts on this case are available here.

More Moonlight Fire Press

"Prosecutors Burn Down the Law," Wall Street Journal, 1/2/15 (subscription required)

"Cal Fire needs to come clean on Moonlight fire investigation," SacBee, 1/4/15

"U.S. Prosecutors Take Heat over Handling of Moonlight Fire Case," TheRecorder, 1/5/15 (registration required)

Moonlight Fire Case Hearing

A judge on Monday slowed down Sierra Pacific Industries’ attempt to breathe life back into the government’s lawsuit against the timber giant over the cause of the 2007 Moonlight wildfire.

Despite the mountain of paper filed by the parties in the past six weeks, U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb told opposing counsel at a status hearing that the “threshold question” is whether there has been fraud perpetrated on the Sacramento federal court.

If not, Shubb declared, Sierra Pacific has no standing to reopen the suit, which was settled more than two years ago. A one-year statute of limitations prevents the company from claiming it was defrauded by the government. If a fraud by the government on the court can be shown, however, it would not be subject to such a restriction, the judge said.

* * *

 Shubb said he wants both sides focused only on whether the court was victimized by false and misleading evidence presented by the government, as Sierra Pacific’s lawyers claim. He set oral arguments on the issue for April 6.

 

Sac Bee, 11/24/14