Philos Technologies, Inc. v. Philos & D, Inc.

Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendants’ Rule 60(b)(4) motion to vacate default judgment (that was filed nearly one year after entry of default judgment) asserting that plaintiff lacked personal jurisdiction over defendants, where Dist. Ct. had found that said motion was untimely. Said motion could have been brought at any time, even though two of three defendants had filed informal pro se letter with Dist. Ct. prior to entry of default judgment, where: (1) said letter did not constitute appearance or challenge to Dist. Ct.’s jurisdiction; and (2) corporate defendant made no appearance via counsel prior to entry of default judgment. Accordingly, remand was required for ruling on merits of Rule 60(b)(4) motion for all three defendants.