## Facts

- Dennis Burke died in a trucking accident on April 17, 1995.
- A wrongful death action was filed in federal court under diversity jurisdiction against truck driver John Smith and Heyl Truck Lines, Inc.
- Plaintiffs included the decedent’s widow (individually and as administratrix), the decedent’s minor daughter Tammy Burke (through her mother as next friend), and the workers’ compensation carrier.
- The case settled shortly after filing for $987,500.
- The written release was signed by the widow individually and as administratrix, but neither Tammy nor anyone signing specifically in a “next friend” capacity executed the release on Tammy’s behalf.
- The district court dismissed “the action” with prejudice based on the parties’ stipulation.
- The district court did not appoint a guardian ad litem for Tammy and did not conduct a hearing to determine whether the settlement was fair to the minor.
- Years later, Tammy sought relief from the dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), asserting the judgment was void.

## Issues

1. Whether the dismissal with prejudice was “void” under Rule 60(b)(4) because the district court failed to apply mandatory Alabama protections for settlement of a minor’s claim (including judicial approval and representation safeguards).
2. If the dismissal was void, whether the district court could vacate it only as to the minor plaintiff while leaving the dismissal intact for the remaining plaintiffs.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the determination that the dismissal was void under Rule 60(b)(4) due to the absence of required safeguards for the minor’s settlement.
- The court vacated the district court’s order to the extent it set aside the dismissal only as to Tammy.
- The court remanded with instructions consistent with treating the dismissal order—entered as a dismissal of “the action” as a whole—as invalid for all parties once found void.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 60(b)(4) permits relief only for judgments that are void, including judgments entered in a manner that violates due process (such as depriving a party of meaningful protection or an opportunity to be heard where required).
- In a diversity case, a federal court must respect state-law requirements that condition the validity of a minor’s settlement on judicial oversight and protective procedures.
- Failure to provide state-mandated protections for a minor’s settlement (e.g., appointment of a guardian ad litem and a fairness determination) can render a settlement-based dismissal void under Rule 60(b)(4).
- When an order dismisses the entire “action” with prejudice rather than separable claims, a determination that the order is void requires vacatur of the dismissal as to all parties; a court lacks discretion to preserve portions of a void judgment.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that a settlement-based dismissal entered without required state-law protections for a minor plaintiff was void under Rule 60(b)(4), and because the dismissal order terminated the entire action, the judgment had to be set aside for all parties rather than only for the minor.


Burke v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2001)