The complaint in Texas alleged only diversity and the existence of an unpaid Kansas federal judgment against Bass. Bass's answer alleged that in the Kansas case he had appeared and answered on the merits, that a jury had been demanded and never withdrawn with his consent, that his counsel later withdrew without his knowledge, and that no three-day notice was given before plaintiff sought a default judgment. The Kansas judgment recited that defendants were in default because their attorneys had withdrawn after notice, and that evidence was heard, but Bass alleged no evidence was actually heard and that he did not learn of the judgment until he was served in the Texas enforcement action. On the Rule 12(c) motion, the facts alleged in Bass's answer were treated as true for purposes of the motion.
Issue
May a defendant in a federal suit on a prior federal judgment collaterally resist enforcement by alleging that, despite his prior appearance and answer, the rendering court treated the case as in default without the notice required by Rule 55(b)(2), denied a demanded jury trial, and entered judgment without evidence, thereby depriving him of due process?
Rule
A federal judgment rendered by a court with jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter ordinarily cannot be collaterally attacked for mere procedural error or for errors on the merits. But if, despite a defendant's appearance and pleading, the court treats the case as in default without the notice required by Rule 55(b)(2), denies a demanded jury trial without waiver, and enters judgment without evidence so that the proceeding lacks due process, the judgment is void and may be resisted collaterally in a later suit to enforce it.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Lena Ortiz sued Devon Pike in federal court in Colorado over an unliquidated tort claim. Devon appeared, filed an answer denying liability, and the plaintiff demanded a jury; months later Devon's lawyer withdrew, Devon received no further notice, and the court entered judgment after labeling him in default when he failed to appear for trial. In a later federal enforcement action in New Mexico, Devon alleges no Rule 55(b)(2) notice was given, he never consented to withdrawal of the jury demand, and no evidence was actually taken.
If those allegations are taken as true at the pleading stage, which is the best result?
Explanation. The majority held that a federal judgment ordinarily is not open to collateral attack for mere procedural error, but it may be resisted in a later enforcement suit when the alleged facts show a denial of due process. Where the defendant had appeared and answered, was treated as in default anyway, received no Rule 55(b)(2) notice, had not waived an existing jury demand, and judgment allegedly was entered without evidence, the judgment may be void rather than merely erroneous. The enforcement court therefore must test the truth of those allegations rather than enter judgment on the pleadings.