From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Whitehouse v. Rosenbluth Bros.

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania
Dec 7, 1962
32 F.R.D. 247 (E.D. Pa. 1962)

Summary

ordering defendants to submit evidence supporting their Rule 60(b) motion that Florida federal court that had entered a judgment against them did not have personal jurisdiction over them

Summary of this case from Myers v. Moore

Opinion

         Plaintiffs obtained a judgment in a Florida federal district court and registered the judgment in the instant court by filing a certified copy. Defendants moved to be relieved from the effects of the judgment on the ground that Florida court had no jurisdiction in that defendants were not properly served with process. The District Court, Grim, J., held that where the record failed to show how the Florida court obtained jurisdiction over the defendant or what kind of proceedings were used to obtain the judgment, the court would not dismiss the motion but would defer action thereon until additional information had been submitted.

         Order in accordance with opinion.

          No appearance for plaintiff.

          S. Gordon Elkins and David H. Rosenbluth, of Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.


          GRIM, District Judge.

         In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, plaintiffs obtained a judgment which they registered in this court under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1963, by filing a certified copy of the Florida judgment. Under F.R.Civ.P. 60(b) defendants have moved this court to be relieved from the effects of the judgment here, contending that the Florida court had no jurisdiction over them and that, consequently, the judgment is void. The contention that the Florida judgment is void appears to be based upon a contention that defendants, residents of Pennsylvania, were not properly served with process.

          The Florida judgment apparently was obtained in a bankruptcy or reorganization proceeding in which it was contended that the defendants owed the estate a certain sum of money. However, there is nothing in the record to show how the Florida court obtained jurisdiction over the defendants or indeed to show what kind of proceedings were used to obtain the judgment. The Florida court or a bankruptcy referee might have entered a turnover order against the defendants or a plenary suit may have been filed in the Florida District Court to obtain the judgment which now has been transferred to this court, but there is no indication of how service was made in the proceeding, whatever its nature.

         Because of the lack of such vital information, this court cannot proceed any further on defendants' motion to be relieved from the effects of the judgment. However, this court will not dismiss defendants' motion but instead will defer action thereon until additional information has been submitted about the details of obtaining the Florida judgment. Defendants will be given 60 days from this date to submit proper evidence to establish this additional information. Plaintiffs may likewise produce evidence during that period. If defendants submit no such evidence within that time their motion for relief may be denied.


Summaries of

Whitehouse v. Rosenbluth Bros.

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania
Dec 7, 1962
32 F.R.D. 247 (E.D. Pa. 1962)

ordering defendants to submit evidence supporting their Rule 60(b) motion that Florida federal court that had entered a judgment against them did not have personal jurisdiction over them

Summary of this case from Myers v. Moore
Case details for

Whitehouse v. Rosenbluth Bros.

Case Details

Full title:G. Hugo WHITEHOUSE and Nicholas Jameson, Co-Trustees, v. ROSENBLUTH…

Court:United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Dec 7, 1962

Citations

32 F.R.D. 247 (E.D. Pa. 1962)

Citing Cases

On Track Transp., Inc. v. Lakeside Warehouse & Trucking Inc.

Burda, 417 F.3d at 299 (quoting Miller v. Jones, 779 F.Supp. 207, 210-11 (D.Conn.1991)). Moreover, this Court…

Myers v. Moore

The Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits have held that, if a defendant had actual notice of the original…