U.S. v. Berke

6 Citing cases

  1. Friedman v. Adams

    Case No. 2:13-CV-1345 JCM (CWH) (D. Nev. Jan. 25, 2017)

    " Furthermore, "[a] final judgment is 'void' for purposes of Rule 60(b)(4) only if the court that considered it lacked jurisdiction, either as to the subject matter of the dispute or over the parties to be bound, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law." United States v. Berke, 170 F.3d 882, 883 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing In re Ctr. Wholesale, Inc., 759 F.2d 1440, 1448 (9th Cir. 1985)). Next, Rule 60(b)(5) allows relief from a final judgment or order when "the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable.

  2. Scofield v. Guillard

    3:22-cv-00521-REP (D. Idaho Nov. 13, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    “Instead, Rule 60(b)(4) applies only in the rare instance where a judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice or opportunity to be heard.” Id. at 271; see also United States v. Berke, 170 F.3d 882, 883 (9th Cir. 1999) (recognizing that a “final judgment is ‘void' for purposes of Rule 60(b)(4) only if the court that considered it lacked jurisdiction, either as to the subject matter of the dispute or over the parties to be bound, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law.”).

  3. Wadsworth v. KSL Grand Wailea Resort, Inc.

    Civ. No. 08-00527 ACK-RLP (D. Haw. Sep. 26, 2014)

    Thus, "[a] judgment is not void, for example, simply because it is or may have been erroneous." Id.; see also United States v. Berke, 170 F.3d 882, 883 (9th Cir. 1999). Similarly, a motion under Rule 60(b)(4) is not a substitute for a timely appeal.

  4. Jimena v. UBS AG Bank, Inc.

    1:07-cv-00367 OWW SKO (E.D. Cal. Jun. 24, 2011)   Cited 1 times

    The Ninth Circuit has "consistently" held that a "final judgment is 'void' for purposes of Rule 60(b)(4) only if the court that considered it lacked jurisdiction, either as to the subject matter of the dispute or over the parties to be bound, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law." Id. at 876 (quoting United States v. Burke, 170 F.3d 882, 883 (9th Cir. 1999)). Plaintiff further has failed to present any newly discovered evidence or shown any intervening change in controlling law to justify reconsideration of the prior memorandum decision.

  5. United States v. Benoit

    08cv2140-MMA(JMA) (S.D. Cal. Jun. 16, 2011)

    A final judgment is void, and therefore must be set aside, "only if the court that considered it lacked jurisdiction, either as to the subject matter of the dispute or over the parties to be bound, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law." In re Sasson, 424 F.3d 864, 876 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Berke, 170 F.3d 882, 883 (9th Cir. 1999). Benoit has not alleged that the Court lacked jurisdiction over this matter, and the Court did not act in a manner inconsistent with due process.

  6. In re Corbett

    Case No. 4-02-bk-06249-EWH, Adversary No. 4-07-ap-00003 (Bankr. D. Ariz. Aug. 26, 2008)   Cited 1 times
    Stating that the court previously dismissed the debtor's post-discharge FDCPA claims upon the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

    The Ninth Circuit has consistently held that a "final judgment is 'void' for purposes of Rule 60(b)(4) if the court that considered it lacked jurisdiction, either as to the subject matter of the dispute or over the parties to be bound, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law." United States v. Berke, 170 F.3d 882, 883 (9th Cir. 1999). If a judgment is void, a motion to set it aside may be brought at any time.