Commodity Futures v. Heffernan
4:04-cv-23302
D.S.C.Jul 9, 2025Background
- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) brought enforcement proceedings against George Heffernan (a/k/a George W. Marshall) for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act, involving fraudulent investment solicitations and acting as an unregistered commodity pool operator.
- After discovery and briefing, the court granted summary judgment for the CFTC, finding Heffernan liable and imposing a permanent injunction, disgorgement, monetary penalty, and restitution.
- Final judgment was entered on February 25, 2008. Heffernan did not appeal or object to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
- Sixteen years later, in April 2025, Heffernan filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to vacate and dismiss the judgment, alleging improper notice and passage of time.
- The motion did not specify the exact grounds of Rule 60(b), nor did it provide evidence of improper service or a substantive defense to the original claims.
- The CFTC opposed the motion, arguing it was untimely and failed to satisfy Rule 60(b)’s requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Motion | Motion is time-barred under 1-year Rule 60(b)(1)-(3) | Passage of time justifies relief | Motion is untimely |
| Judgment Voidness | Proper service and notice given; no void judgment | Lack of notice and improper service; due process violated | No evidence judgment is void; relief denied |
| Rule 60(b)(6) Relief | No extraordinary circumstances shown | Passage of time and prejudice are extraordinary circumstances | No extraordinary circumstances; relief denied |
| Meritorious Defense | No defense presented; prior violations clear | Asserts ignorance of proceedings, seeks to reopen case | No meritorious defense; relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200 (4th Cir. 2003) (Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary and only granted in exceptional circumstances)
- McLawhorn v. John W. Daniel & Co., 924 F.2d 535 (4th Cir. 1991) (Movant must show a meritorious defense as a threshold for Rule 60(b) relief)
- Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988) (Discussing proper use of Rule 60(b)(6)’s catch-all provision)