Oral Argument Re-Listen: Coney Island Auto Parts v. Burton | Time Trap Tangle
Artikel konnten nicht hinzugefügt werden
Der Titel konnte nicht zum Warenkorb hinzugefügt werden.
Der Titel konnte nicht zum Merkzettel hinzugefügt werden.
„Von Wunschzettel entfernen“ fehlgeschlagen.
„Podcast folgen“ fehlgeschlagen
„Podcast nicht mehr folgen“ fehlgeschlagen
Oral Argument Re-Listen: Coney Island Auto Parts v. Burton | Time Trap Tangle
-
Gesprochen von:
-
Von:
Über diesen Titel
Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton | Case No. 24-808 | Oral Argument Date: 11/5/25 | Docket Link: Here
OverviewToday, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Coney Island Auto Parts versus Burton, a time trap tangle examining when void verdicts gain validity. Coney Island's bank account gets frozen for nearly $100,000 based on a 2015 Tennessee judgment they claim they never knew about. When Coney finally fights back seven years later, the Sixth Circuit dismisses the case, saying that you waited too long to challenge the judgment Coney didn’t even know about. "If something never existed in the first place, does waiting too long to challenge it make it real?
Question Presented: Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Oral Advocates:
- For Petitioner (Coney): Daniel Ginzburg, Freehold, N.J.
- For Respondent (Burton): Lisa S. Blatt, Washington, D.C.
Holding: Rule 60(c)(1)’s reasonable-time limit applies to a motion alleging that a judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4).
Result: Affirmed.
Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion. Justice Sotomayor wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment.
Majority's Rationale: Rule 60(c)(1) clearly requires all Rule 60(b) motions within reasonable time, including void judgment challenges. Even void judgments face timing limits because no constitutional principle grants unlimited challenge time. Allowing indefinite challenges would create extreme consequences like ignoring appeal and certiorari deadlines.
Concurring Rationale: Rule 60's text and structure clearly require reasonable time limits for all motions. The majority unnecessarily addressed constitutional questions that no party raised or argued. Courts should stick to deciding actual disputes, not inventing constitutional theories.
Link to Opinion: Here.
Timestamps:
[00:00:00] Argument Preview
[00:00:58] Argument Begins
[00:01:07] Petitioner Opening Statement
[00:03:17] Petitioner Free for All Questions
[00:19:12] Petitioner Sequential Questions
[00:19:15] Respondent Opening Statement
[00:20:33] Respondent Free for All Questions
[00:34:10] Petitioner Rebuttal
