Crown Iron Works Company v. Intecnial, S.A.
- David Doty
- 0:20-cv-01317
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Crown Iron Works Company v. Intecnial, S.A., Judge Doty denied Brazilian company Intecnial's motion to vacate a 2022 default judgment, finding that Intecnial waited over three years without adequate explanation before hiring counsel and bringing the motion, making it untimely.
Foreign (Brazilian) companies that have received default judgments entered against them in U.S. federal court, particularly those who delayed seeking legal representation to challenge such judgments. Also relevant to parties seeking to enforce or resist enforcement of foreign court judgments that may conflict with existing U.S. judgments.
What happened
In Crown Iron Works Company v. Intecnial, S.A., a Minnesota federal court case, Crown Iron Works sued Intecnial — a Brazilian company — seeking a declaration that Intecnial's breach-of-contract claims against Crown were too old to pursue in court. After Intecnial was properly served in Brazil but failed to respond, the court entered a default judgment in Crown's favor on January 10, 2022. Intecnial recently sought to undo that judgment, arguing the court never had legal authority over it (called 'personal jurisdiction') and that the judgment should be thrown out.
Intecnial brought its motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a rule that allows courts to set aside final judgments under certain circumstances, including when a judgment is legally void or for other significant reasons. Intecnial argued that the 2022 default judgment was void because the court lacked personal jurisdiction over it, and separately argued there were other sufficient reasons to vacate. The timing of the motion was central to the court's analysis — both types of Rule 60(b) relief must be sought within a 'reasonable time' after judgment.
Judge Doty denied the motion. He found that Intecnial had not filed within a reasonable time: Intecnial knew as early as 2022 that it needed to hire a lawyer to properly pursue a motion to vacate, yet it did nothing for over three years before finally filing this motion in September 2025. Because Intecnial provided no adequate explanation for the long delay, Judge Doty denied relief under both grounds it raised.
The detailed version
- Crown Iron Works Company v. Intecnial, S.A., Civil No. 20-1317 (DSD/JFD)
- David S. Doty
- October 30, 2025
Background
Crown Iron Works Company filed suit on June 5, 2020, against Intecnial, S.A., a Brazilian company headquartered in Erechim, Brazil, seeking a declaratory judgment that Intecnial's breach-of-contract claims (which Intecnial had filed in Brazil in 2019) were time-barred under applicable law. The court authorized letters rogatory — formal requests to a foreign court for assistance in serving process — and Crown ultimately obtained permission from the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice to serve Intecnial under the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory. Intecnial was served on May 19, 2021, but did not respond to the lawsuit.
The clerk of court entered default against Intecnial on October 1, 2021. Crown moved for default judgment on December 3, 2021, and the court granted it on January 10, 2022. Shortly after, Intecnial's CEO and director Airton Jose Folador moved to vacate the default judgment on Intecnial's behalf, but the court denied that motion because Intecnial, as a corporation, is required to be represented by licensed counsel and was not. No further action was taken for over three years.
In September 2025, now represented by counsel, Intecnial filed the present motion to vacate the default judgment and dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction (meaning Intecnial argues Minnesota courts had no authority over it). The stated motivation is that Intecnial has since won a substantial judgment in the Brazilian litigation, and the U.S. default judgment complicates enforcement of that Brazilian judgment.
Legal Standards
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows a court to relieve a party from a final judgment for several enumerated reasons, including that the judgment is void (Rule 60(b)(4)) or for 'any other reason that justifies relief' (Rule 60(b)(6)). Under Rule 60(c)(1), motions under Rule 60(b) must be made within a 'reasonable time.' The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals applies a reasonableness timeliness requirement to both Rule 60(b)(4) and Rule 60(b)(6) motions, and what constitutes a reasonable time depends on the specific facts of each case.
Analysis — Rule 60(b)(4)
Intecnial argued the default judgment is void because the court lacked personal jurisdiction over it. A judgment rendered without jurisdiction is void and can be vacated. However, the threshold question was timeliness. The court found the motion was not filed within a reasonable time. Intecnial knew by 2022 — when its first vacatur attempt was rejected — that it needed counsel to proceed. Despite that knowledge, it remained silent for over three years before retaining counsel and filing this motion in September 2025. Intecnial's papers provided no adequate explanation for this lengthy delay.
Analysis — Rule 60(b)(6)
The court applied the same reasonableness standard and reached the same conclusion. Because the motion was not timely under either provision, the court declined to reach the merits of the personal jurisdiction argument.
Ruling
The motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 37) was denied.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.