McMahan v. Grasshopper

Argument summary

AI-generated — not an official transcript or court record.

1. Petitioner Grasshopper argues that the default order entered before their appearance is void because service of process was not properly effectuated, citing binding precedent that requires such orders to be overturned.
2. The Court questioned whether Grasshopper’s prior statements acknowledging they had been served constituted judicial admissions or estoppel, noting that opposing counsel and the court relied on those representations.
3. Grasshopper contends that their earlier references to being served were colloquial rather than legal admissions of valid service, pointing to case law allowing further explanation of statements.
4. The Court raised concerns about the procedural rule applicable to setting aside the default, questioning whether Rule 60(b)(4) or Rule 55(c) governs given that no final judgment had yet been entered.
5. Respondent McMahan argues that Grasshopper waived any objection to insufficient service by filing an answer and repeatedly stating they were served, rather than timely raising the issue via a Rule 12 motion or specific affirmative defense.
6. The parties debated conflicting precedents, with Grasshopper relying on Preston v. Denkins regarding void judgments for lack of jurisdiction, while McMahan cited Montana to argue that a general appearance cures service defects.

Recordings

1. Recording · PT44M54S · Captions available