Hawkins v. MV Transportation, Inc., 8:15-cv-02169

Josephine Hawkins (pro se, later counsel appointed) sued MV Transportation, Inc. under Title VII alleging sex discrimination and constructive discharge; EEOC had issued a right-to-sue letter.
Hawkins struggled with service, ultimately filing a Proof of Service stating CT Corporation (MV’s Maryland resident agent) was served on June 9–10, 2016.
MV did not appear or answer; Clerk entered default and the Court entered a default judgment for $75,347.60 on April 10, 2017.
Hawkins obtained a writ of garnishment against an MV Wells Fargo account in July 2017, which prompted MV to move to vacate the default judgment on Sept. 8, 2017.
MV argued the judgment was void for lack of personal jurisdiction because only the summons (not the complaint) was served on CT Corporation; MV alternatively sought relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
The Court independently confirmed service by contacting CT Corporation and MV, credited the process server’s affidavit, and denied MV’s motion to vacate, allowing garnishment to proceed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether service of process was proper such that the court had personal jurisdiction	Hawkins: CT Corporation was served with both the summons and complaint; CT forwarded papers to MV; Court’s independent checks confirm service	MV: CT received only the summons, not the complaint; therefore the Court lacked personal jurisdiction and the default judgment is void	Court found sufficient evidence CT received both documents (process server affidavit + Court’s independent verification); personal jurisdiction existed; judgment not void
Whether default judgment should be vacated under Rule 60(b)(6) for extraordinary circumstances	Hawkins: default judgment should stand; no extraordinary circumstances shown by MV	MV: even if served, extraordinary circumstances (e.g., administrative/recording error or excusable neglect) justify relief from judgment	Court held MV failed to show extraordinary circumstances; MV or its agent were negligent or inattentive but that does not warrant relief under 60(b)(6); motion denied

Park Corp. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 812 F.2d 894 (4th Cir.) (factors to vacate default judgment)
United States v. Moradi, 673 F.2d 725 (4th Cir.) (heightened standard for vacating default judgments vs. setting aside clerk’s entry)
Koehler v. Dodwell, 152 F.3d 304 (4th Cir.) (improper service deprives court of personal jurisdiction; judgment void)
Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496 (4th Cir.) (Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances)
Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (U.S.) (scope and rarity of 60(b)(6) relief)
Dowell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Auto. Ins. Co., 993 F.2d 46 (4th Cir.) (Rule 60(b)(6) as catchall for relief)
Johnson v. Dayton Elec. Mfg. Co., 140 F.3d 781 (8th Cir.) (relief from default judgment requires stronger showing than relief from clerk’s entry of default)