Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Dominique Rizo filed suit against UrgentCare2go.com, LLC, and DK Physicians PLLC on April 10, 2025. The summons and complaint were delivered to a business address associated with both defendants and left with a receptionist. After neither defendant responded, the clerk entered default, and the court entered a final default judgment on August 6, 2025.
The defendants asserted that they first learned of the judgment when Rizo served post-judgment discovery on January 5, 2026. They retained counsel, but that attorney did not seek relief despite five follow-up requests. After replacing counsel on June 12, the defendants moved on June 26—172 days after receiving actual notice—to vacate the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), arguing that defective service rendered the judgment void.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the motion because it was not filed within a reasonable time as required by Rule 60(c)(1). Measuring timeliness from January 5, 2026, when the defendants had a basis to challenge the judgment, the court held that their nearly six-month delay was unreasonable and unsupported by good cause.
The defendants could not justify the delay by blaming their first attorney because counsel’s acts and omissions are generally chargeable to the client, particularly for post-judgment deadlines. The court also found that the delay had postponed Rizo’s recovery and that the judicial system’s interest in finality weighed against reopening the case.
Because untimeliness independently defeated the motion, the court declined to decide whether service was defective or whether the default judgment was void.
Key Takeaways
- A Rule 60(b)(4) motion seeking relief from an allegedly void judgment must be filed within a reasonable time.
- A party generally cannot establish good cause for post-judgment delay by attributing inaction to its freely selected attorney.
- A court may deny an untimely motion to vacate without reaching whether defective service rendered the judgment void.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that parties must act promptly once they learn of a default judgment, even when they contend that the judgment is void for lack of proper service. Retaining counsel does not relieve a party of responsibility for monitoring the case and responding to prolonged attorney inaction.
The ruling also shows that prejudice to the judgment creditor and the interest in finality can reinforce a finding that post-judgment relief was sought too late.