Mira Holdings, Inc v. SRL Bowtex
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:24-cv-03130
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Mira Holdings v. SRL Bowtex, Judge Menendez denied Mira's motion for default judgment without prejudice because Mira skipped a required procedural step and filed incomplete supporting documents.
Plaintiffs seeking default judgment in federal court in the District of Minnesota, particularly those who may not be aware of the required two-step default process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 or the local rules requiring simultaneous filing of all motion documents.
What happened
In Mira Holdings, Inc. v. SRL Bowtex, Mira Holdings filed a motion asking the court to enter a default judgment against SRL Bowtex, a Belgian corporation that apparently failed to respond in the lawsuit. The court identified two procedural problems with the motion: (1) Mira had not yet asked the court clerk to formally record the defendant's default before jumping to the default judgment motion — a required first step under the rules — and (2) Mira filed only its motion and a hearing notice, but omitted several other required documents, including a legal memorandum, supporting affidavits, and a proposed order.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, obtaining a default judgment is a two-step process. First, a party must get the court clerk to enter a record of the opposing party's default. Only after that can the party file a motion asking the judge to enter a default judgment. Because Mira skipped the first step, the court found the motion was filed too early and could not be granted at this time.
Judge Menendez denied the motion for default judgment without prejudice, meaning Mira is permitted to refile it after properly completing the two-step process and submitting all required documents at the same time. The October 16, 2025 hearing was also canceled, with instructions for Mira's lawyers to contact the court to schedule a new hearing date if they refile.
The detailed version
- Mira Holdings, Inc v. SRL Bowtex · No. 0:24-cv-03130
- Katherine Menendez
- Aug. 20, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Mira Holdings, Inc. filed suit against SRL Bowtex, described as a Belgian corporation. On August 19, 2025, Mira filed a motion for default judgment and a notice of hearing, apparently because SRL Bowtex had not responded to the lawsuit. The court issued this order the following day addressing procedural defects in the motion.
First Defect: Premature Motion Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55
Obtaining a default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 requires two distinct steps. The first step, governed by Rule 55(a), requires that a party apply to the clerk of court to formally enter the opposing party's default in the record. Only after the clerk has entered that default may the moving party proceed to the second step — filing a motion for default judgment with the judge under Rule 55(b)(2). (An exception exists under Rule 55(b)(1) for certain sum-certain claims, which the court did not find applicable here.)
The court cited the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Johnson v. Dayton Electric Manufacturing Co., 140 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1998), which confirms that entry of default under Rule 55(a) must precede any grant of a default judgment under Rule 55(b). Because Mira moved directly for default judgment without first obtaining a clerk's entry of default, the motion was premature and legally insufficient.
Second Defect: Noncompliance with Local Rule 7.1(c)(1)
The District of Minnesota's Local Rule 7.1(c)(1) requires that a party filing a dispositive motion (a motion that could end the case) simultaneously file all supporting documents, including: the motion itself, a notice of hearing, a memorandum of law (a written legal argument), any affidavits and exhibits, a meet-and-confer statement (documenting that the parties discussed the dispute), and a proposed order. Mira filed only the motion and the notice of hearing, omitting all other required documents. If Mira refiles, it must comply with this simultaneous-filing requirement.
Disposition
Judge Menendez denied the motion for default judgment (Docket Entry 14) without prejudice, expressly permitting Mira to renew the motion after (1) first obtaining a clerk's entry of default against SRL Bowtex under Rule 55(a), and (2) refiling the motion with all required supporting documents submitted simultaneously in compliance with Local Rule 7.1(c). The October 16, 2025 hearing (Docket Entry 15) was canceled, with instructions for Mira's counsel to contact the court's chambers to obtain a new hearing date upon refiling.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.