MP3•Episode home
Manage episode 516924559 series 3660688
Content provided by SCOTUS Oral Arguments. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by SCOTUS Oral Arguments or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://staging.podcastplayer.com/legal.
Coney Island Auto Parts v. Burton | Case No. 24-808 | Oral Argument Date: 11/5/25 | Docket Link: Here
Question Presented: Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes any time limit to set aside a default judgment void for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Overview
This episode examines a deceptively simple civil procedure case that could fundamentally reshape how federal courts handle void judgments, creating a constitutional tension between centuries-old legal principles and modern procedural rules about timing requirements for challenging judgments that courts never had authority to enter.
Episode Roadmap
Opening: The Void Judgment Paradox
- November 5th, 2025 oral argument date
 - Circuit split: Sixth Circuit stands alone against every other federal circuit
 - Core tension: Can procedural rules validate what should never have existed?
 - Affects every federal court nationwide using Rule 60
 
Background: The Seven-Year Journey
- Vista-Pro Automotive bankruptcy in Nashville, Tennessee
 - February 2015: Default judgment against Coney Island Auto Parts for $48,696.21
 - Coney Island claims never received proper service - no personal jurisdiction
 - 2020: Trustee registers judgment in New York, freezes $100,000 in bank accounts
 - March 2022: Seven years later, Coney Island files Rule 60(b)(4) motion to vacate
 
The Central Legal Question
- Rule 60(b)(4): Courts can vacate judgments that "are void"
 - Rule 60(c)(1): "Any motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time"
 - Does "reasonable time" apply to truly void judgments?
 - Fundamental question: Can time limits apply to legal nullities?
 
Lower Court Journey
- Tennessee bankruptcy court grants motion to vacate
 - Sixth Circuit reverses 2-1, applies "reasonable time" requirement
 - Creates circuit split with every other federal circuit
 - Supreme Court grants certiorari to resolve nationwide inconsistency
 
Constitutional Framework: Due Process and Jurisdiction
- Personal jurisdiction: Court's authority over parties
 - Void judgment: "No judgment at all" - legal nullity from inception
 - Due process concerns: Enforcing judgments without proper notice
 - Historical principle: Void judgments attackable at any time
 
Petitioner's Arguments (Coney Island Auto Parts):
Argument 1: Logical Impossibility
- "If a judgment is void immediately upon entry, how could the passage of time vivify it?"
 - Void means legal nullity - cannot gain validity through delay
 - Procedural rules cannot breathe life into what never existed
 
Argument 2: Historical Practice and Tradition
- Centuries of precedent allowing challenges to void judgments at any time
 - 1946 Advisory Committee intended "reasonable time" for voidable, not void judgments
 - Advisory Committee statements distinguish void from voidable judgments
 
Argument 3: Judicial Consensus
- Every circuit except Sixth Circuit recognizes exception for void judgments
 - Well-established understanding that void judgments are special category
 - Circuit split demonstrates widespread acceptance of traditional rule
 
Respondent's Arguments (Burton):
Argument 1: Plain Text Controls
- Rule 60(c)(1): "A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time"
 - Rule 60(b)(4) is part of Rule 60(b) - text is unambiguous
 - Every tool of statutory interpretation supports time limits
 
Argument 2: Rule Structure and Drafting History
- Drafters knew how to create exceptions - did so for Rules 60(b)(1)-(3)
 - Advisory Committee rejected proposal imposing no time limits for void judgments
 - Committee agreed "all motions should be made within a reasonable time"
 
Argument 3: Procedural vs. Substantive Distinction
- Time limits don't validate void judgments - they impose procedural requirements
 - Distinction between judgment validity and challenge procedures
 - Prevents "flagrantly inequitable conduct" and protects finality interests
 
Episode Highlights
Key Legal Concepts Explained
- Personal Jurisdiction: Court's legal authority over parties to a lawsuit
 - Void Judgment: Legal nullity with no validity from the moment entered
 - Default Judgment: Judgment entered when defendant fails to respond
 - Rule 60(b)(4): Federal rule allowing relief from void judgments
 - Service of Process: Legal requirement to provide proper notice of lawsuit
 - Circuit Split: When federal appeals courts reach conflicting decisions
 - Due Process: Constitutional requirement of fair legal proceedings
 
347 episodes