Also known as: FRCP 60 · Rule 60(b) · Rule 60(a) · relief from judgment · Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A federal rule of civil procedure that authorizes a district court to relieve a party from a final judgment or order on enumerated grounds including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, voidness, or satisfaction of the judgment.
Ridgeway Partners obtained a final default judgment against Regal Apparel after the company failed to answer a contract suit. Regal Apparel later showed that its registered agent had misplaced the summons due to excusable neglect. The court granted relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b) and permitted the company to litigate the claim on the merits.
After final judgment dismissed investors' securities claims, Congress enacted a statute directing courts to reopen those judgments. The investors moved under Rule 60(b) for relief. The court denied the motion because the statute impermissibly directed revision of final Article III judgments.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Tenants sued a landlord for housing discrimination and demanded a jury. After judgment, the landlord moved under Rule 60(b) to strike the jury demand as untimely. The court denied relief, holding that the Seventh Amendment right to jury trial on legal claims remained intact despite the post-judgment challenge.
After a consent decree resolved employment claims, nonparties filed a separate action attacking the decree. The court treated the filing as a Rule 60(b) motion and denied it, explaining that collateral proceedings are not subject to all exceptions available on direct appeal.
After dismissal of federal claims, a plaintiff filed a second action in state court. The defendant moved under Rule 60(b) to reopen the first judgment. The court denied relief, confirming that the prior judgment retained full preclusive effect and could not be collaterally reopened.
After the Supreme Court summarily affirmed a lower-court ruling, a party moved under Rule 60(b) to reopen the case. The court denied the motion, holding that the summary affirmance constituted binding precedent that could not be disregarded through post-judgment relief.
A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time. For grounds of mistake, newly discovered evidence, or fraud, the motion must be filed no more than one year after entry of the judgment.
Supporting sources
No. Relief under Rule 60(b)(4) is limited to fundamental defects such as lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or denial of due process. Ordinary legal errors must be addressed by direct appeal rather than a Rule 60(b) motion.
Supporting sources
No. A Rule 60 motion does not affect the judgment's finality or suspend its operation, which is why courts apply the rule narrowly and enforce its time limits strictly.
A court may set aside a final default judgment under Rule 60(b) when the movant shows grounds such as mistake, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or fraud, provided the motion is timely.
Supporting sources
Rule 59 motions must be filed within 28 days of judgment and address trial errors or newly discovered evidence that could not have been raised earlier. Rule 60 provides longer time limits for specific grounds after the judgment has become final.
…of Article III courts to be the more instructive authority. See supra , at 225-226. Finally, petitioners liken § 27A(b) to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which authorizes courts to relieve parties from a final judgment for grounds such as excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or "any other reason justifying relief . . . ."…