Josh Norris v. Garry Causey, 869 F.3d 360

Background

Joshua and Jill Norris (the Norrises) financed a joint-venture to buy/renovate post‑Katrina properties; Garry Causey wrote and signed the written agreement; Karry Causey acted as project manager but did not sign.
The Norrises loaned Garry $93,000 (two checks of $48,000 and $45,000); Garry wired $15,780 to Karry and Norrises gave Karry $1,000 for plans.
The Causeys diverted funds for personal use and stalled renovations; Norrises later filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy and did not list the claim in initial schedules; the trustee’s interim reports listed a potential claim and the trustee’s final report abandoned the claim to the Norrises.
The Norrises sued; Garry did not appear and default judgment entered against him for $94,000 (breach of contract and fiduciary duty); Karry defended at bench trial and was held liable for $16,780 (amount he spent) plus $1,000.
Postjudgment, both Causeys moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4): they argued (1) Norrises lacked standing/weren’t real parties in interest due to bankruptcy nondisclosure, and (2) Garry was not properly served.
The district court denied vacatur, ruled Norrises were not proper plaintiffs but allowed substitution by the trustee, found service proper; this appeal affirms Karry’s liability and fee award but remands for further factfinding on service to Garry.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Norris)	Defendant's Argument (Causeys)	Held
Whether judgment is void based on plaintiff’s bankruptcy nondisclosure / real‑party‑in‑interest	Norrises: abandonment by trustee made claim theirs; no void judgment	Causeys: nondisclosure meant trustee, not Norrises, was real party in interest -> judgment void	Real‑party‑in‑interest is nonjurisdictional; Rule 60(b)(4) inapplicable; court correctly denied vacatur on this ground; substitution by trustee at court’s discretion if needed
Whether lack of Article III standing voids judgment	Norrises: have injury and redressability	Causeys: challenge labeled as "standing"	Article III standing exists (injury, causation, redressability); real‑party‑in‑interest differs from Article III standing
Whether service on Garry was proper (personal jurisdiction)	Norrises: process server attempted service; posting on door valid given refusal to accept	Garry: New Mexico posting was ineffective (not his abode or posting occurred on different day than refusal)	Personal jurisdiction/service is reviewable under Rule 60(b)(4); record ambiguous on timing and presence/refusal — REMANDED for additional factfinding on substituted service and good‑faith/actual‑notice issues
Whether Karry tacitly accepted the joint venture and his damages/fee liability	Norrises: Karry tacitly accepted, liable for full damages and fees	Karry: never accepted agreement; should not be liable for full $94,000; fee award excessive	Karry tacitly accepted; liable for $16,780 (plus $1,000) — not the full $94,000; lost profits speculative; attorney‑fee award affirmed as reasonable under Louisiana law

Key Cases Cited

United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260 (exceedingly narrow list of defects rendering a judgment void)
Sprint Commc'ns Co. v. APCC Servs., Inc., 554 U.S. 269 (Article III standing is a jurisdictional requirement)
Jackson v. FIE Corp., 302 F.3d 515 (Rule 60(b)(4) void‑judgment timing principles)
Lopez Dominguez v. Gulf Coast Marine & Assoc., Inc., 607 F.3d 1066 (Rule 60 relief may be sought after notice of appeal; limitations on vacating during appeal)
Thompson v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 775 F.3d 298 (defective service can render default judgment void for lack of personal jurisdiction)
Harper Macleod Solicitors v. Keaty & Keaty, 260 F.3d 389 (district court must set aside default judgment as void where personal jurisdiction lacking due to defective service)
Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (definition of prevailing party for fee awards)
Homoki v. Conversion Servs., Inc., 717 F.3d 388 (conspiracy damages and proof considerations)