Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Notus LLC d/b/a ROFX, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied Defendant Borys Konovalenko’s amended motion to set aside a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), (4), and (6). The Court held that Konovalenko failed to establish excusable neglect or extraordinary circumstances, and that service through his private mailbox was proper under Florida Statute § 48.031(6)(a), so the judgment was not void.

Holdings

1. A defaulting party seeking relief for excusable neglect must show a meritorious defense, lack of prejudice to the nondefaulting party, and a good reason for failing to respond. Konovalenko failed to satisfy those requirements, so relief under Rule 60(b)(1) was denied.
2. Service was valid under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) and Florida Statute § 48.031(6)(a), and the default judgment was therefore not void under Rule 60(b)(4).
3. Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) was unwarranted because Konovalenko failed to show circumstances sufficiently extraordinary to justify setting aside the judgment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Konovalenko established excusable neglect warranting relief from the default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1).
2. Whether the default judgment was void under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) because service at Konovalenko's private mailbox was invalid.
3. Whether extraordinary circumstances justified relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6).

Disposition

other