On November 4, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton (24-808) to consider whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes a time limit on motions seeking to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction.

In 2014, Vista-Pro Automotive, LLC, entered bankruptcy proceedings, and in 2015, it filed suit against Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc., to recover thousands of dollars in unpaid invoices. Vista-Pro mailed the summons and complaint to Coney Island but addressed them to the corporate entity—not to any officer, agent, or individual, as required by the applicable service rules. When Coney Island did not respond, the bankruptcy court entered a default judgment, and Vista-Pro’s trustee repeatedly attempted to collect the judgment without success. Years later, Coney Island moved to vacate the default judgment, arguing that it was void due to improper service and lack of personal jurisdiction. Both the bankruptcy court and the district court denied Coney Island’s motion as untimely, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the motion was not filed within a reasonable time under Rule 60(c)(1).

During oral argument, Justice Thomas inquired as to how void ab initio (a Latin term, meaning void from the start) differs from the grounds listed in Rule 60(b), with Coney Island’s counsel arguing that no reasonable time limitation should apply because a void judgment is a legal nullity. Justice Alito noted that the Court’s position has been that if a judgment is void ab initio, it has no legal effect, but wondered whether removing Rule 60(c)(1)’s reasonable time element would provide a party with an unlimited amount of time to appeal from a judgment. Justice Jackson expressed concern that the merits of the case appear intertwined with the procedural question, suggesting that a court should first determine whether the judgment is void before assessing whether a motion to vacate was filed in a timely manner. Justices Gorsuch and Barrett questioned whether filing a motion under Rule 60(d)(1), through a collateral attack on the judgment, would be an option.

The Court’s decision is expected later this term. Stay tuned for Dykema’s decision alert discussing the Court’s forthcoming opinion and its implications for federal practice.

For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Mark Magyar, or Monika Harris.