This month we address cases concerning the appropriate standard for finding that a litigant has perpetrated a fraud on the court, a court’s authority to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens absent a formal motion to do so, and a driving-under-the-influence suspect’s right to communicate with counsel prior to submitting to a chemical breath test.
Fraud on the Court
In CDR Creances S.A.S. v. Cohen, the court determined the appropriate standard for finding that a litigant has perpetrated a fraud on the court. The court, in a unanimous decision by Judge Jenny Rivera,1 adopted the approach taken in federal cases and ruled that a court must find by clear and convincing evidence that a party engaged in a fraud on the court before imposing appropriate sanctions.
