Bayardo Sandy v. Sunmoon Freight, Inc., 714 F. App'x 678

Plaintiff Bayardo Reno Sandy was rear-ended by a semi owned by Sunmoon Freight, Inc.; Sandy obtained default judgment for $1.5 million after Sunmoon (and insurer Zurich) did not answer.
Zurich American Insurance Company, Sunmoon’s insurer and a nonparty, had counsel appear below with the court’s permission but neither Zurich nor Sunmoon filed an answer to the complaint.
Forty-five days after the district court entered default judgment, Zurich moved under Rule 60 to set aside or vacate the judgment; the district court denied the motion.
Zurich and Sunmoon appealed the denial; the panel considered both standing issues (Zurich as a nonparty; Sunmoon’s participation) and the merits of the Rule 60(b) grounds.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion, focusing on whether the judgment was void for lack of due process and whether excusable neglect justified relief.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed: Zurich’s nonparty appeal was questionable but, assuming standing, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief under Rule 60(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing of nonparty Zurich to appeal	Sandy: judgment should stand; Zurich lacks exceptional-circumstances standing	Zurich: permitted participation below justifies appellate review as an exceptional nonparty	Zurich’s standing questionable; Sunmoon did not join motion so Sunmoon lacks standing; assuming Zurich could appeal, merits fail
Whether judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4) for due process violations	Sandy: judgment not void; procedures met sufficiently	Zurich/Sunmoon: district court ruled before local 14-day period expired and no Rule 55 damages hearing was held, so judgment void for lack of notice/hearing	Judgment not void; any procedural defects did not rise to constitutional deprivation of notice or opportunity to be heard
Rule 60(b)(1) — excusable neglect for late challenge to judgment	Sandy: no excusable neglect; prejudice and delay weigh against vacatur	Zurich: counsel’s filing errors and late discovery of default justify relief as excusable neglect	District court considered equitable Pioneer factors; denial was not an abuse of discretion
Whether district court had to reassess Eitel factors on motion to vacate	Sandy: no need to relitigate Eitel on Rule 60 motion	Zurich: sought reconsideration of default-entry factors	Court not required to reweigh Eitel factors on Rule 60(b); denial proper

Citibank Int’l v. Collier-Traino, Inc., 809 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1987) (nonparty appellate standing limited to exceptional circumstances)
Canada Life Assurance Co. v. LaPeter, 563 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2009) (party must join motion below to have appellate standing)
Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2000) (standard of review for Rule 60(b) denial and abuse-of-discretion framework)
United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260 (2010) (defining when a judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4))
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (due process is a flexible inquiry balancing notice and opportunity to be heard)
Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2010) (applying Pioneer factors for excusable neglect in Rule 60 context)
Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993) (four-factor test for excusable neglect)
Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) (factors for entering default judgment)
Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 2004) (limitations on using Rule 60 to relitigate original judgment)