Mira Holdings, Inc v. SRL Bowtex
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:24-cv-03130
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Mira Holdings, Inc. v. SRL Bowtex, Judge Menendez denied Mira's motion for default judgment without prejudice because Mira skipped the required first step of having the court clerk formally enter a default, and also failed to file all required supporting documents alongside its motion.
Mira Holdings, Inc., the plaintiff seeking a default judgment against SRL Bowtex (a Belgian corporation that has apparently not responded in the lawsuit). The ruling primarily affects Mira, which must follow the correct two-step procedure before it can obtain a default judgment.
What happened
In Mira Holdings, Inc. v. SRL Bowtex (No. 24-cv-3130), Mira Holdings, Inc. filed a motion asking the court to enter a default judgment against SRL Bowtex, a Belgian corporation, on August 19, 2025. The motion had two procedural problems that prevented the court from acting on it.
First, Mira skipped a required step: before a party can ask a judge to enter a default judgment against an opponent who has failed to respond, the party must first have the court clerk formally record that the opponent is in default. Mira went straight to asking the judge for a default judgment without first getting the clerk's entry of default. Second, under the local rules of the District of Minnesota, a party filing a major motion like this must submit all supporting documents — including a legal memorandum, any declarations or exhibits, a statement showing the parties tried to confer, and a proposed order — all at the same time as the motion itself. Mira filed only the motion and a hearing notice, leaving out all the other required documents.
Judge Menendez denied the motion without prejudice, meaning Mira is allowed to refile it after correcting both problems. The previously scheduled October 16, 2025 hearing was also canceled. If Mira properly obtains the clerk's entry of default against SRL Bowtex and then refiles its motion with all required documents, it must contact Judge Menendez's chambers to schedule a new hearing date.
The detailed version
This order from Judge Katherine Menendez of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota addresses procedural defects in Plaintiff Mira Holdings, Inc.'s motion for default judgment against Defendant SRL Bowtex, a Belgian corporation.
Background
Mira filed a motion for default judgment (Docket No. 14) and a notice of hearing (Docket No. 15) on August 19, 2025, seeking a default judgment against SRL Bowtex, which had apparently failed to appear or respond in the case.
First Defect — Premature Filing
The court explains that obtaining a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 is a two-step process. Step one requires the party to apply to the Clerk of Court for an entry of default under Rule 55(a), which occurs when the opposing party has failed to plead or otherwise defend the action. Only after the clerk has entered that default may the moving party then file a motion for default judgment before the judge under Rule 55(b)(2). (An exception under Rule 55(b)(1) applies when the claim is for a sum certain and the defaulting party is not a minor or incompetent, but the court does not indicate that exception applies here.) Because Mira moved directly for a default judgment without first obtaining the clerk's entry of default, the motion was premature. The court cited Johnson v. Dayton Elec. Mfg. Co., 140 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1998) for the proposition that entry of default under Rule 55(a) must precede a grant of default judgment under Rule 55(b).
Second Defect — Local Rule Non-Compliance
The court also found that the motion did not comply with District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1(c)(1), which requires that all moving papers for a dispositive motion (a motion that could fully resolve the case) be filed simultaneously. The required documents include: the motion itself, a notice of hearing, a memorandum of law, any affidavits and exhibits, a meet-and-confer statement (documenting that the parties attempted to resolve the dispute before bringing it to the court), and a proposed order. Mira filed only the motion and notice of hearing.
Ruling
The court denied the motion for default judgment without prejudice (meaning Mira may refile), and canceled the October 16, 2025 hearing. The court specified that if Mira first obtains a clerk's entry of default under Rule 55(a) and then refiles its motion for default judgment, it must simultaneously file all documents required by Local Rule 7.1(c) and contact the judge's chambers to schedule a new hearing date.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.