Personal Jurisdiction & Default Judgments — Who Bears the Burden of Proving Personal Jurisdiction on a Motion to Vacate a Default Judgment? Circuit Split

Arpaio v. Dupre, 527 F. App'x 108 (3d Cir. 2013):

Footnote 4.  We note the circuit split regarding which party bears the burden of proof in establishing personal jurisdiction in a motion to vacate a default judgment. Bally Exp. Corp. v. Balicar, Ltd., 804 F.2d 398, 401 (7th Cir. 1986) ("There is not agreement . . . as to whether the burden remains upon the plaintiff after the plaintiff has obtained a default judgment."); compare Oldfield v. Pueblo de Bahia Lora, S.A., 558 F.3d 1210, 1217 (11th Cir. 2009) ("It goes without saying that, where the defendant challenges the court's exercise over its person, the plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of establishing that personal jurisdiction is present . . . whether the issue is raised by way of a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) or a motion to set aside a judgment under Rule 60(b)(4).") with "R" Best Produce, Inc. v. DiSapio, 540 F.3d 115, 126 (2d Cir. 2008) ("[I]n a collateral challenge to a default judgment under Rule 60(b)(4), the burden of establishing lack of personal jurisdiction is properly placed on a defendant who had notice of the original lawsuit."). However, we need not address the issue in this case because the parties did not raise it in the District Court. See Frank v. Colt Indust., Inc., 910 F.2d 90, 100 (3d Cir. 1990) ("We generally refuse to consider issues that are raised for the first time on appeal." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

 

Share this article:

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on email
Email

Recent Posts

Archives