Aaron Danielson v. Albertus Human

Fourth Circuit

Aaron Danielson v. Albertus Human

676 F. App'x 198

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 10, 2017

Docket16-2125

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 676 F. App'x 198 (Aaron Danielson v. Albertus Human) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aaron Danielson v. Albertus Human, 676 F. App'x 198 (4th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Albertos Johannes Human appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his untimely Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of its entry of default judgment. We review the district court’s finding that Human’s Rule 60(b) motion was untimely for abuse of discretion. Moses v. Joyner, 815 F.3d 163, 166 (4th Cir. 2016), petition for cert. filed, — U.S.L.W. — (U.S. Aug. 5, 2016) (No. 16-5507).

A district court “may set aside a final default judgment under Rule 60(b),” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c), and such a motion must be filed within “a reasonable time,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). A movant seeking relief from a judgment under Rule 60(b) must make a threshold showing of “timeliness, a meritorious defense, a lack of unfair prejudice to the opposing party, and exceptional circumstances.” Dowell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Auto. Ins. Co., 993 F.2d 46, 48 (4th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Park Corp. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 812 F.2d 894, 896 (4th Cir. 1987) (holding that a movant must show that his motion is timely, that he has a meritorious defense, and that there would be no unfair prejudice and that, “[i]f the moving party makes such a showing, he must then satisfy one or more of the six grounds for relief set forth in Rule 60(b)”).

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Human’s Rule 60(b) motion, filed more than 2 years after entry of judgment and more than 10 months after an enforcement action was filed, was untimely. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Albertos Johannes Human appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his untimely Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of its entry of default judgment. We review the district court’s finding that Human’s Rule 60(b) motion was untimely for abuse of discretion. Moses v. Joyner, 815 F.3d 163, 166 (4th Cir. 2016), petition for cert. filed, — U.S.L.W. — (U.S. Aug. 5, 2016) (No. 16-5507).

A district court “may set aside a final default judgment under Rule 60(b),” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c), and such a motion must be filed within “a reasonable time,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). A movant seeking relief from a judgment under Rule 60(b) must make a threshold showing of “timeliness, a meritorious defense, a lack of unfair prejudice to the opposing party, and exceptional circumstances.” Dowell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Auto. Ins. Co., 993 F.2d 46, 48 (4th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Park Corp. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 812 F.2d 894, 896 (4th Cir. 1987) (holding that a movant must show that his motion is timely, that he has a meritorious defense, and that there would be no unfair prejudice and that, “[i]f the moving party makes such a showing, he must then satisfy one or more of the six grounds for relief set forth in Rule 60(b)”).

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Human’s Rule 60(b) motion, filed more than 2 years after entry of judgment and more than 10 months after an enforcement action was filed, was untimely. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

676 F. App'x 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aaron-danielson-v-albertus-human-ca4-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack