Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

New Cosmos Systems v. Chicago Midwest Export Corp. et al

March 15, 2011

NEW COSMOS SYSTEMS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CHICAGO MIDWEST EXPORT CORP. ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Chesler, U.S.D.J.

OPINION & ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the motion to vacate a judgment (Docket Entry No. 13), pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 55(c) and 60(b), by Defendant Shuming Gu ("Gu.")*fn1 For the reasons set forth below, the motion to vacate a judgment will be granted.

On September 29, 2010, this Court granted Plaintiff's motion for entry of default judgment against Gu. On December 9, 2010, Gu filed the instant motion.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) states:

(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

(4) the judgment is void;

(5) 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; or

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Gu contends that, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4), the judgment is void because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over him. Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d 244, 258 (3d Cir. 2008) ("A judgment is void within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(4) if the court that rendered it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant.")

In deciding whether to vacate a default judgment under Rule 60(b), the Court "must consider the following three factors: (1) whether the plaintiff will be prejudiced; (2) whether the defendant has a meritorious defense; and (3) whether the default was the result of the defendant's culpable conduct." Gold Kist, Inc. v. Laurinburg Oil Co., 756 F.2d 14, 19 (3d Cir. 1985). The Third Circuit favors a liberal application of the rule allowing a default judgment to be vacated to advance the policy of deciding cases on the merits. Tozer v. Charles A. Krause Milling Co., 189 F.2d 242, 245 (3d Cir. 1951) ("Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the petition to set aside the judgment so that cases may be decided on the merits.")

As to the first factor, Plaintiff, in opposing the motion, does not claim that it will be prejudiced. As to the second factor, this Court finds that, in arguing that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over him, Defendant has raised a meritorious defense. In brief, the Complaint alleges a breach of contract related to a commercial purchase by Plaintiff New Cosmos Systems ("NCS"), a New Jersey corporation with a principal place of business in New Jersey, from Defendant Chicago Midwest Export Corp. ("CMEC"), an ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.