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 v. Intecnial, Judge Doty denied Intecnial's motion to vacate a 2022 default judgment because Intecnial waited over three years without explanation before filing the motion.
Foreign companies or parties who fail to timely respond to U.S. lawsuits and later seek to challenge default judgments entered against them, particularly those who delay without explanation in securing legal representation after learning a court challenge requires counsel.
What happened
In Crown Iron Works Company v. Intecnial, S.A., Crown Iron Works filed a lawsuit in 2020 seeking a court declaration that claims Intecnial had raised against it in Brazil were too late under the applicable time limits. Intecnial, a Brazilian company, was properly served but never responded to the lawsuit, leading the court to enter a default judgment against it in January 2022. Intecnial later won a large judgment against Crown in the Brazilian court proceedings, but that Brazilian judgment is complicated by the U.S. default judgment — motivating Intecnial to now try to undo the U.S. ruling.
Intecnial asked the court to throw out the default judgment under a federal rule that allows courts to reopen final judgments for reasons such as the judgment being legally void (here, Intecnial argued the court had no power over it in Minnesota) or other extraordinary circumstances. However, both of those legal avenues require the requesting party to act within a reasonable time after the judgment. Intecnial had attempted to challenge the judgment shortly after it was entered in 2022, but that earlier attempt failed because Intecnial — a corporation — was not represented by a lawyer, as required. After that denial, Intecnial did nothing for over three years before hiring counsel and filing this motion in September 2025.
Judge Doty denied the motion. The court found that Intecnial's three-plus-year delay, despite knowing it needed a lawyer to properly bring the challenge, was not within a reasonable time. Because Intecnial offered no adequate explanation for waiting so long, the court refused to reach the underlying question of whether the default judgment was actually void for lack of personal jurisdiction. The motion was denied.
The detailed version
- Crown Iron Works Company v. Intecnial, S.A. · No. 0:20-cv-01317
- David Doty
- Oct. 30, 2025
Background
In June 2020, Crown Iron Works Company filed this lawsuit against Intecnial, S.A., a Brazilian company based in Erechim, Brazil. Crown sought a declaratory judgment — a court ruling establishing legal rights — that claims Intecnial had asserted against Crown in Brazilian litigation (a breach-of-contract suit filed in Brazil in 2019) were time-barred under applicable limitations rules.
Because Intecnial is a foreign entity, service of process required special steps. The court issued letters rogatory (formal requests from a U.S. court to a foreign court for judicial assistance), and Crown eventually obtained permission from the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice to serve Intecnial under the Inter-American Convention. 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. The court then granted Crown's motion for default judgment on January 10, 2022. Shortly after that, Intecnial's CEO and director, Airton Jose Folador, moved pro se (without a lawyer) to vacate the default judgment, arguing improper service. The court denied that motion on the ground that Intecnial, as a corporate entity, is required to be represented by licensed counsel — it cannot represent itself through an officer.
More than three years later, in September 2025, Intecnial — now with counsel — filed a new motion to vacate the default judgment and dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction (i.e., arguing the Minnesota court never had legal authority over Intecnial). The stated motivation was that Intecnial had won a substantial judgment against Crown in the Brazilian proceedings, and enforcement of that Brazilian judgment is complicated by the existing U.S. default judgment.
Legal Standard — Rule 60(b)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows a court to grant relief from a final judgment or order for specified reasons, including: (4) the judgment is void (e.g., because the court lacked jurisdiction), or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. Under Rule 60(c)(1), a motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held this timeliness requirement applies to both Rule 60(b)(4) and Rule 60(b)(6) motions.
Analysis
Rule 60(b)(4) — Void Judgment
Intecnial argued the default judgment is void because the court lacked personal jurisdiction over it. A judgment rendered without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void under Rule 60(b)(4), and a party may seek to vacate it on that basis. However, the court declined to reach the merits of the jurisdiction argument because Intecnial did not file the motion within a reasonable time.
The court noted the following timeline: the default judgment was entered January 10, 2022; Intecnial attempted to challenge it shortly thereafter but failed because it lacked counsel; nothing else occurred for over three years; and Intecnial filed this motion in September 2025. What constitutes a "reasonable time" is fact-specific, but the court found this gap — combined with Intecnial's knowledge since 2022 that it needed counsel to proceed — did not satisfy the standard. Intecnial's filings offered no adequate explanation for the years of inaction.
Rule 60(b)(6) — Other Reason
Intecnial's alternative argument under Rule 60(b)(6), which covers extraordinary circumstances not addressed by other subsections, also failed for the same reason: it is equally subject to the reasonable-time requirement, and the court found that requirement was not met here.
Disposition
The court denied Intecnial's motion for relief from judgment (ECF No. 37). The court did not reach the merits of the personal jurisdiction challenge.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.