York Group, Inc. v. Wuxi Taihu Tractor Co., Ltd.
632 F.3d 399
7th Cir.2011Background
- York served Benefield with a subpoena in a federal Texas suit against Wuxi Taihu Tractor; Benefield did not comply or move to quash.
- District court in Illinois enforced the subpoena after Benefield’s nonresponse, within proper venue for Rule 45 subpoenas.
- Benefield was later found in civil contempt for failing to appear at contempt hearings and ordered to pay York about $22,000 and to reimburse York’s legal expenses.
- York garnished Benefield’s checking account after the contempt order; Benefield moved for relief under Rule 60(b) more than three months later.
- District court held Benefield was properly served based on the process server’s testimony and a neighbor’s affidavit; Benefield appealed the ruling on service and any related rulings, but timeliness issues dominated the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Benefield was properly served with the subpoena. | York contends service was proper at Benefield’s home. | Benefield contends he was not properly served. | Yes; service was valid. |
| Whether the Rule 60(b) motion preserved appellate review of the contempt judgment. | York argues Rule 60(b) preserved review of the service issue and related rulings. | Benefield argues timely review of all post-judgment orders. | Rule 60(b) motion timing limits review to the ruling on the motion itself; other rulings remain unreviewed. |
| Whether two post-judgment motions are successive for appeal purposes. | York asserts Rule 60(b) and Rule 59(e) are not successive for jurisdiction. | Benefield contends successive motions toll the time for appeal. | Treating them as a new final judgment allows appeal countdown from the later ruling. |
| Whether Benefield forfeited arguments raised in Rule 59(e). | York contends arguments were forfeited for failure to raise timely. | Benefield asserts jurisdictional concerns allow belated raising. | Arguments raised in Rule 59(e) were forfeited and not reviewed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (jurisdictional requirement for timely notices of appeal)
- Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257 (1978) (Rule 60(b) effects and finality considerations)
- Martinez v. Chicago, 499 F.3d 721 (7th Cir. 2007) (Rule 4(a)(4) tolling after timely Rule 59/60 motions)
- Inryco, Inc. v. Metropolitan Engineering Co., 708 F.2d 1225 (7th Cir. 1983) (interpretation of post-judgment motion timing)
- Moody v. Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co., 915 F.2d 201 (6th Cir. 1990) (timing and impact of post-judgment motions)
- Andrews v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 447 F.3d 510 (7th Cir. 2006) (example of sequential post-judgment review)
- SEC v. Van Waeyenberghe, 284 F.3d 812 (7th Cir. 2002) (post-judgment motion impact on appeal)
- McKnight v. United States Steel Corp., 726 F.2d 333 (7th Cir. 1984) (review limitations where final judgments been entered)
- Frontera Resources Azerbaijan Corp. v. State Oil Co. of Azerbaijan, 582 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing service and personal jurisdiction findings)