A Rule 60(b)(4) motion to vacate a void judgment in United States District Court is the topic of this blog post.
A Rule 60(b)(4) motion to vacate a judgment in United States District Court is typically filed using the grounds that a default judgment entered against the moving party is void due to the fact that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant as the defendant was never validly served with the summons and complaint
Rule 60 states in pertinent part that “(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (4) the judgment is void;
Rule 60 also states that “(c) Timing and Effect of the Motion. (1) Timing. A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.”
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that if a defendant is not properly served that any default judgment entered against them is void for lack of personal jurisdiction because the defendant has not been served in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has also stated that if the district court finds that a judgment is void they must vacate the judgment and do not need to consider the merits of any defense, any prejudice to the plaintiff or any culpable conduct on the part of the defendant.
A void judgment is a legal nullity. See Black's Law Dictionary 1822 (3d ed.1933); see also id., at 1709 (9th ed.2009).
Although the term "void" describes a result, rather than the conditions that render a judgment unenforceable, it suffices to say that a void judgment is one so affected by a fundamental infirmity that the infirmity may be raised even after the judgment becomes final. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments 22 (1980); see also id., § 12.
And a well known Federal Practice Guide states that there is no time limitation on filing a Rule 60(b)(4) motion. See 11 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2862 (3d ed.2013). However in my personal opinion based on working in California and Federal litigation since 1995 any party who has not been properly served with the summons and complaint should file their motion as soon as possible after they have knowledge that a default judgment has been entered against them.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal in discussing Rule 60 has stated that this rule, like all the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “is to be liberally construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits.” Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir. 1983) (internal citations omitted.)
See also Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1, “The Federal Rules should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”
“Rule 60(b) is ‘remedial in nature and . . . must be liberally applied.’ ” TCI Group Life Ins. v. Knoebber, 244 F.3d 691, 696 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal citations and quotations omitted.)
Sample Rule 60(b)(4) motion to vacate a judgment in United States District Court for sale.
Attorneys or parties in civil litigation in United States District Court who wish to view a portion of an 11 page sample Rule 60(b)(4) motion to vacate a judgment that includes brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proof of service by mail sold by the author can use the link shown below.
Sample Motion to Vacate Judgment Under Rule 60(b)(4) by Stan Burman on Scribd
Federal legal document collection for sale.
Attorneys or parties in California that would like more information on a Federal legal document collection containing over 50 sample documents including a sample motion to vacate judgment under Rule 60(b)(4) sold by the author can use the link shown below.
https://legaldocspro.myshopify.com/collections/frontpage/products/federal-legal-document-collection
Over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation for sale.
To view more information on over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation visit: https://legaldocspro.myshopify.com/products
The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and retired litigation paralegal that worked in California and Federal litigation from January 1995 through September 2017 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale.
Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.
https://twitter.com/legaldocspro
Like the Facebook page for Legaldocspro at:
https://www.facebook.com/LegalDocsPro/
DISCLAIMER:Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.
The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.