BALANCING TEST

Issues

This case asks the Court to determine whether the strict standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) always applies to a post-judgment request to vacate in order to file an amended complaint, or if a balancing test can be applied instead. Petitioner BLOM Bank SAL argues that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)’s stringent standard must apply to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended complaint, contrary to the Second Circuit’s ruling. Respondent Honickman argues that Rule 60(b)(6)’s stringent standard need not apply to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended complaint, because the Second Circuit’s decision to use a balancing test serves as a better standard to review the Rule. BLOM Bank SAL argues that ruling in favor of Honickman would undermine the finality of judgments by allowing post-judgment amendments under Rule 60(b)(6) too liberally. Honickman counters by arguing that ruling in BLOM Bank SAL’s favor would prevent victims of terrorism from obtaining justice, particularly in cases where new evidence emerges post-judgement.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources