Jiewen Lin v. Binglin Zhong, Ant Bicycle Inc., Seabusiness Inc., and Couree Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Binglin Zhong’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered in favor of Jiewen Lin. The court held that the motion was untimely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), having been filed nearly four years after judgment, and further concluded that Zhong could not establish excusable neglect. The court also explained that Rule 60(b)(6) could not be used to circumvent the one-year limitation applicable to Rule 60(b)(1).

Holdings

1. A motion seeking relief from a judgment for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1) must be filed no more than one year after entry of the judgment. Zhong's motion, filed nearly four years after judgment, was time-barred.
2. Even if timely, Zhong's motion would fail because the circumstances did not establish excusable neglect. His receipt of litigation materials, business and litigation experience, and knowledge of the judgment more than a year before filing showed that his failure to defend was not excusable.
3. A party may not invoke Rule 60(b)(6) based on the same language-barrier and unfamiliarity reasons that fall within Rule 60(b)(1), because Rule 60(b)(6) cannot be used to circumvent Rule 60(b)(1)'s one-year deadline.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Zhong's motion to vacate the default judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) was timely when filed nearly four years after entry of judgment.
2. Whether Zhong established mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect warranting relief from the default judgment under Rule 60(b)(1).
3. Whether Zhong could recast his language-barrier and unfamiliarity arguments as grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(6) to avoid Rule 60(b)(1)'s one-year deadline.

Disposition

other