Mark Anthony Davis v. Boulevard Nightlife Group, LLC
20-55975
| 9th Cir. | Oct 20, 2021Background:
- Boulevard Nightlife Group (four appellants) failed to respond or appear in the district court; Mark Anthony Davis moved for and obtained a default judgment.
- About 3.5 months after entry of judgment, Boulevard filed a Rule 60(b) motion seeking relief from the default judgment.
- The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion as untimely, relying on a 30-day appeal-based timeliness rule (Gila River Ranch).
- Boulevard argued the motion sought relief for excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1) and alternatively that the judgment was void for improper service under Rule 60(b)(4).
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion, concluded the district court erred by not considering the merits of the 60(b)(1) claim and by failing to address the 60(b)(4) voidness argument, and reversed and remanded.
- Boulevard’s challenges to two post-judgment district-court orders were rejected for lack of appellate jurisdiction because Boulevard had filed a notice of appeal before those orders and did not amend it.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Rule 60(b)(1) motion | Davis: motion untimely; district correctly relied on 30‑day appeal rule | Boulevard: motion filed <4 months; Rule 60(c)(1) "reasonable time" / within 1 year; Gila River rule not controlling | Reversed: district abused discretion by refusing to consider merits; 30‑day appeal rule does not automatically bar Rule 60(b)(1) relief |
| Rule 60(b)(4) — void judgment for improper service | Davis: service adequate / motion did not specify subsection | Boulevard: defects in service render judgment void and warrant 60(b)(4) relief | Reversed: district abused discretion by failing to consider 60(b)(4) improper-service argument |
| Jurisdiction to review two post‑judgment orders | Davis: appeal of those orders untimely because notice filed earlier and not amended | Boulevard: (sought review of those orders) | Affirmed for jurisdictional reasons: appellate court lacks jurisdiction because notice of appeal was not timely filed or amended |
Key Cases Cited
- Benson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 1207 (9th Cir. 2012) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for Rule 60(b) denial; legal questions reviewed de novo)
- Smith v. Pac. Pros. & Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2004) (legal issues in Rule 60(b) review are reviewed de novo)
- Gila River Ranch, Inc. v. United States, 368 F.2d 354 (9th Cir. 1966) (district court relied on a 30‑day appeal‑based timeliness rule)
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (U.S. 1993) (excusable neglect framework; allocation of blame affects timeliness analysis)
- In re Gilman, 887 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2018) (rejects using general appeal deadline to govern Rule 60 timeliness)
- Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2009) (district must consider merits or state valid grounds when denying Rule 60 motions)
- United States v. Berke, 170 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 1999) (judgment is void if the court lacked jurisdiction over the parties)
- SEC v. Internet Sols. for Bus. Inc., 509 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2007) (improper service can support Rule 60(b)(4) relief)
- Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala. v. Unity Outpatient Surgery Ctr., Inc., 490 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2007) (failure to consider Rule 60(b)(4) argument can be an abuse of discretion)
- Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572 (9th Cir. 2007) (party must file or amend a notice of appeal to challenge later decisions)
- Cruz v. Int’l Collection Corp., 673 F.3d 991 (9th Cir. 2012) (untimely or unamended notice of appeal deprives appellate court of jurisdiction)