Case Explained: SUSAN FLAHERTY; ROBERT FLAHERTY; DANIEL FLAHERTY v. AMIGOS DEL MAR LTD., d/b/a Amigos Del Mar Dive Shop as owners of the vessel M/V Papa Changa MAVERICK AVARELLO; ALBINO “CHANGA” PAZ; SCUBA DIVING INTERNATIONAL; SCUBA SCHOOLS INTERNATIONAL; JOHN ROMERO; JOHN DOE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-08

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b)(4) motion filed by Amigos Del Mar Ltd. to vacate a default judgment entered against it in August 2020 for maritime injuries sustained by Susan Flaherty in Belize. The court held that the motion was barred by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1), which requires such motions to be made within a “reasonable time.” Relying on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in *Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton*, 607 U.S. 155 (2026), the First Circuit clarified that the “reasonable time” limitation of Rule 60(c)(1) applies to motions under Rule 60(b)(4) claiming a judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction, overruling prior circuit precedent that allowed such motions at any time. The court applied an abuse of discretion standard of review, noting that the district court had correctly anticipated this legal shift and found the delay untimely even under the new rule. The court determined that Amigos’ two-year delay in filing its motion was unreasonable based on three factors: the length of the delay, the lack of justification, and potential prejudice. Although Amigos argued that Belizean counsel advised it to ignore U.S. proceedings due to a belief in lack of jurisdiction, the court rejected this as insufficient because the district court had provided notice of the judgment and damages hearing, which Amigos waived any challenge to. Furthermore, even if the “reasonable time” clock started when Flaherty attempted enforcement in Belize in July 2022, Amigos waited nineteen months to file its motion without valid cause or diligent effort. The court concluded that Amigos effectively slept on its rights and that the district court did not err in denying relief. Consequently, the default judgment entered by the District of Massachusetts remains in full force and effect.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.