[24-808] Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton

Nov 4, 2025

Petitioner's Counsel (Mr. Gainsbourg / Mr. Ginsburg)

Mr. Gainsbourg and Ms. Blatt, the petitioner's and respondent's counsels respectively, delve into a gripping legal battle over jurisdiction and judgment vacatur. They debate whether Rule 60(c)(1) allows for an unlimited time to vacate judgments deemed void due to improper service. The conversation explores historical context, the implications of timeliness for justice, and practical concerns regarding notice and access to legal relief. This intense discussion raises critical questions about due process and the flexibility required in the legal system.

Ask episode

AI Snips

Chapters

Transcript

Episode notes

INSIGHT

Void Judgments Are Nullities

Void judgments lack legal effect from entry and historically are treated as nullities that must be vacated.
If a judgment is void ab initio, passage of time alone cannot magically validate it, counsel argued.

ADVICE

Challenge Only After Adverse Enforcement

Challenge void judgments when enforcement invades personal interests like bank seizures or contempt.
Avoid waiting on minor post-judgment steps that courts might treat as triggering timeliness concerns.

INSIGHT

No Statutory Time For Truly Void Judgments

Petitioners argued there is no statutory time limit on vacating truly void judgments.
They contend filing deadlines collapse if a judgment never had legal effect.

Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode

Get the app

Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton

Justia · Docket · oyez.org

Argued on Nov 4, 2025.

Petitioner: Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc.
Respondent: Jeanne Ann Burton.

Advocates:

Daniel Ginzburg (for the Petitioner)
Lisa S. Blatt (for the Respondent)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

In November 2014, Vista-Pro Automotive, LLC, a Nashville-based auto-parts corporation, entered bankruptcy proceedings in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. In 2015, Vista-Pro—later represented by its Chapter 7 trustee—filed an adversary proceeding against Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc., a New York corporation, to recover about $50,000 in unpaid invoices. Vista-Pro mailed the summons and complaint to Coney Island’s Brooklyn address addressed only to the corporate entity, not to any officer, agent, or individual as required for proper service under the rules governing service on corporations. Coney Island did not respond to the complaint, leading the bankruptcy court in May 2015 to enter a default judgment against it.

Following reconversion of the case to a Chapter 7 proceeding, the trustee repeatedly attempted to collect the judgment. Coney Island received notice of the judgment at least as early as April 2016 when its CEO was sent a demand letter. Years later, after the trustee sought to enforce the judgment by freezing Coney Island’s bank assets in New York, Coney Island sought to vacate the default judgment, arguing that it was void due to improper service and lack of personal jurisdiction.

The bankruptcy court and later the district court denied Coney Island’s motion to vacate the judgment as untimely. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that under its precedents interpreting Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1), motions to vacate void judgments must be filed within a reasonable time.

Question

Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) impose any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction?