Cited by

Moreover, ARFLP 9(b) provides that “[p]arties and counsel are responsible for knowing the status of their cases and keeping the court informed of material changes in the status of their cases.” ARFLP 9(b); (“A party has a duty to take legal steps to protect his own interests.”).

A party has a duty to take legal steps to protect his own interests.” (citing Ackerman v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 (1950)).

Rule 60(b)(6), therefore, is a “catch-all” provision, that offers relief only where “extraordinary circumstances” are present

A party has a duty to take legal steps to protect h[er] own interests.” (citing Ackerman v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 (1950)).

Gonzalez, 243 Ariz. at 535 ¶ 16

1994) (noting that “passage of time alone is not dispositive” and finding three- month delay reasonable considering prejudice to moving party and no prejudice to nonmoving party)); (finding amount in controversy of $25,000 gave rise to a strong presumption of trial on the merits).

A court must consider the “‘totality of facts and circumstances’ to determine whether Rule 60(c)(6) relief is appropriate.” Amanti Elec., Inc. v. Engineered Structures, Inc., ¶ 7 (App. 2012)

Janca, the court of appeals ruled that where the defendant moved for Rule 60(c)(6) relief expeditiously after a default judgment, and “where a large judgment of $25,000 has been entered on default on a trip and fall case where the injury sustained was allegedly merely a twisted knee and torn ligaments, serious consideration must be given to the presumption of resolution of cases on their merits.” accord Daou, 139 Ariz. at 361 (“[I]t is not the size of the damage award alone that is conclusive, b

Relief nevertheless has been granted “‘with[] a more liberal dispensation than a literal reading of the rule would allow’” in “‘cases of extreme hardship or injustice.’” quoting 11 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2864, at 219-20 (1973); see also Webb, 134 Ariz. at 187, 655 P.2d at 11 (purpose of clause (6) to grant equitable relief “whenever the circumstances are extraordinary and justice requires”), citing Rol

656 (N.D.Cal.1994) (three month delay between judgment and filing of motion under federal Rule 60(b) reasonable considering lack of prejudice to non-moving party among other factors); , (defendants “acted expeditiously” when they moved to set aside default judgment one month after first learning of it); compare Richas, 133 Ariz. at 515 , 652 P.2d at 1038 (“[s]inee delay is not explained [at all], there is no basis” for the court to find delay reasonable).

P.2d 294 (1974) (court analyzed and decided appeal under rule 60(c)(6) after acknowledging that rule 60(c)(4) was also applicable).

Wright & Miller, supra, at 214.

A judgment may be void because of invalid service of process, , or lack of notice to a non-party with standing.

allowed relief from a default judgment under subparagraph 6 in a case where no summons and complaint had been actually received by appellant.

Our Court of Appeals discussed the meaning which has been attached to rule 60(c)(6) at 337 , at 296 (1974): “Federal cases reveal that relief is given under Clause 6 in those cases in which the judgment was obtained by the improper conduct of the party in whose favor it was rendered or the judgment resulted from the excusable default of the party against whom it was directed under circum

of E.W., No. 480, 460 F.2d 105 (5th Cir.1972)