Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton (24-808)

argument 24-808

Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton

Supreme Court of the United States 35 min 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the legal significance of a judgment entered without personal jurisdiction?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument first this morning in case twenty four eight oh eight, Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited versus Burton. Mr Ginsburg.

Unknown 0:08

Thank you, Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. Historically, judgments entered in the absence of personal jurisdiction have been described as a nullity utterly void upon entry. lacking any legal effect and odious to due process. Accordingly, they have routinely been vacated. without reference to any specific period of time or deadline, and courts have noted that it is per se an abuse of discretion for a court not to vacate avoid judgment. In this action, the lower courts did not determine whether the judgment was void. Rather, they held that Coney Island Took too long to bring its motion for Vacator. in violation of the rule of civil procedure sixty C one. which requires such motions to be made within a reasonable time.

Unknown 0:49

This Court has never had occasion previously to consider whether Rule sixty C one applies to judgments void abonitio or the definition of reasonable time. We respectfully submit that the lower courts erred because, as a matter of logic, Rule sixty C one cannot apply to judgments void abonitio. And the reason for that is that if the judgment is void immediately upon entry and remains so for all time, there cannot be a time after which the judgment cannot be vacated. Because A judgment that is void abnitio cannot suddenly spring to life, become active and enforceable through the passage of time alone. To harmonise the doctrine of void abonitio in a reasonable time, the Court may find, as it has in the past,

Unknown 1:30

that a defendant believing that a court lacks jurisdiction may elect to ignore the proceeding, suffer the default judgment, and then collaterally attack that judgment when the judgment creditor attempts to enforce it. Enforcement, however, must be adversarial in nature. or actually invading a personal interest, for example, a contempt proceeding or seizure of a bank account, such that ignoring it would be tantamount to waiver of a known right or acquiescence in the judgment. If enforcement were defined as any action at all trying to collect on a judgment, such as mailing post judgment discovery, then it amounts to that post judgment discovery essentially acting as a supplemental, unauthorized process because the mailing itself

Unknown 2:10

would commence the time period, the expiration of which would cause a subsequent application for vacateur to be denied as untimely. I welcome the Court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 2:19

So you're not arguing that uh your motion, your sixty B motion, was uh filed within a reasonable amount of time?

Unknown 2:27

We believe, Your Honor, that there is no reasonable amount of time within which a judgment that is void ab initio can be vacated.

Clarence Thomas 2:36

Uh how is void ab initio different from the grounds listed in sixty B? The judgment is void at as a basis for the motion.

Unknown 2:46

We believe Your Honor that a sixty B four applies to both void judgments and voidable judgments. And so when a judgment is is voidable there is no reasonable time limitation because at that point the court that had entered it had jurisdiction and for some other reason the the judgment should be should be held void, as opposed to a void judgment which has no legal effect right from the beginning.

Clarence Thomas 3:10

So how do you respond to uh respondents' argument that you're conflating the merits with the timeliness uh of the motion?

Unknown 3:20

Well we believe, Your Honor, that if a judgment is void adminitio, there there is no timeliness aspect that would uh cause that should cause a court to not vacate that judgment.

Samuel A. Alito 3:31

Suppose a uh a district court issues a judgment that is void abinitio and the party against which the judgment is entered waits a year before filing a notice of appeal. Would the Court of Appeals be obligated to entertain that appeal?

Unknown 3:50

I think it would, Your Honor, because at that point the appeal the the filing of the notice of appeal is tantamount or or is not tantamount is w would require uh an appearance before a court and would uh result in in in in in the appearance before the court would result in submission to the jurisdiction of that court.