Pure Maintenance Holdings, LLC v. Mold Zero Services et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
PURE MAINTENANCE HOLDINGS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
MOLD ZERO SERVICES, LLC, and MOLD
ZERO, LLC,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND
PERMANENT INJUNCTION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
Civil No. 1:25-cv-00111-RJS-JCB
District Judge Robert J. Shelby
Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett
Before the court is Plaintiff Pure Maintenance Holdings, LLC’s Motion for Default
Judgment and Entry of Permanent Injunction (Motion).1 Having reviewed the Motion and the
Clerk of Court’s Entry of Default,2 the court DENIES the Motion without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
Pure Maintenance brought this action on August 6, 2025, asserting the following claims:
(1) trademark infringement and unfair competition under federal law; (2) false advertising under
federal law; (3) unfair competition under Utah law; (4) misappropriation of trade secrets and
confidential information under Utah law; (5) defamation; (6) unjust enrichment; and (7) a cause
of action to enforce a state court judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 70.3 The
following day, Pure Maintenance filed its Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.4 After
1 Dkt. 32, Motion for Default Judgment and Entry of Permanent Injunction (Motion).
2 Dkt. 29, Default Certificate and Entry of Default.
3 Dkt. 1, Verified Complaint ¶¶ 40–91.
4 Dkt. 10, Rule 65(b) Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, and Supporting Memorandum.
Case 1:25-cv-00111-RJS Document 33 Filed 11/25/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 5

2
holding a hearing on August 13, 2025,5 the court granted Pure Maintenance’s request for a TRO
(TRO Order).6 The court twice renewed the TRO and converted it to a Preliminary Injunction
on September 26, 2025.7 The Clerk of Court entered default on September 22, 2025.8 Pure
Maintenance now moves for the entry of default judgment against Defendants.9
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 sets forth a two-step process for obtaining a default
judgment against a defaulting party.10 First, the Clerk of Court enters default against a party that
“has failed to plead or otherwise defend” against claims for affirmative relief.11 Second, where
the non-defaulting plaintiff seeks default judgment for an amount other than a “sum certain or a
sum that can be made certain by computation,” as Pure Maintenance seeks here, the plaintiff
must then “apply to the court for a default judgment.”12
The court must follow certain steps before granting default judgment. First, the court has
an affirmative duty to “assess . . . subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction before
granting default judgment.”13 Second, the court must consider whether the plaintiff’s well-
pleaded allegations of fact, deemed admitted by the defendant’s default,14 provide a sufficient
5 Dkt. 14, Minute Entry.
6 Dkt. 18, Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO
Order).
7 Dkt. 24, Temporary Restraining Order; Dkt. 26, Temporary Restraining Order; Dkt. 30, Preliminary Injunction.
8 Dkt. 29, Default Certificate and Entry of Default.
9 Motion.
10 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55.
11 Id. 55(a).
12 Id. 55(b).
13 Williams v. Life Sav. & Loan, 802 F.2d 1200, 1202–03 (10th Cir. 1986).
14 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6).
Case 1:25-cv-00111-RJS Document 33 Filed 11/25/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 5

3
basis for the requested judgment.15 While the court will consider whether the allegations set out
in the Complaint and the accompanying exhibits provide a basis for default judgment,16 the court
may not accept as admitted allegations related to the damages.17 The court must instead evaluate
whether a requested award is “supported by actual proof,” and it may not enter default judgment
until it has ascertained the amount of damages.18 The court may consider exhibits, such as
affidavits and declarations, when evaluating a motion for default judgment.19 Whether to enter
default judgment is committed to the court’s “sound discretion.”20
ANALYSIS
This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action and personal jurisdiction over
Defendants for the reasons explained in the TRO Order.21 And having reviewed the Complaint’s
factual allegations and attached exhibits, the court concludes they provide a sufficient basis for
entering judgment in Pure Maintenance’s favor on each claim.22 However, the court finds it is
unable to “determine the amount of damages”23 to which Pure Maintenance is entitled for two
reasons. First, Pure Maintenance does not indicate in its Motion the amount of damages it
15 See Bixler v. Foster, 596 F.3d 751, 762 (10th Cir. 2010).
16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c) (“A copy of a written instrument that is an exhibit to a pleading is a part of the pleading for
all purposes.”).
17 Id. 8(b)(6).
18 Stampin’ Up!, Inc. v. Hurst, No. 2:16-cv-00886-CW, 2018 WL 2018066, at *6–7 (D. Utah May 1, 2018) (citation
omitted).
19 See, e.g., Major Bob Music v. S. Shore Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., No. 2:08-cv-689, 2010 WL 2653330, at *1 (D.
Utah June 30, 2010).
20 Tripodi v. Welch, 810 F.3d 761, 764 (10th Cir. 2016).
21 See TRO Order at 5.
22 See Verified Complaint.
23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2)(B).
Case 1:25-cv-00111-RJS Document 33 Filed 11/25/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 5

4
requests.24 Second, it has not provided any evidence substantiating its entitlement to damages.25
Based on these failures, the court cannot ascertain the amount of damages to award and thus
cannot yet enter judgment in Pure Maintenance’s favor.
Pure Maintenance also seeks a permanent injunction providing (1) relief previously
granted in the Preliminary Injunction and (2) additional relief.26 When considering whether to
grant a permanent injunction, the court analyzes the same injunctive relief factors that apply to
temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions, except instead of “a substantial
likelihood of success,” a movant must demonstrate “actual success on the merits.”27 Here, when
seeking relief beyond what the court has already ordered, Pure Maintenance makes no effort to
establish it is entitled to that additional relief under the applicable standard. Accordingly, the
court denies without prejudice Pure Maintenance’s request for a permanent injunction.
24 See Motion.
25 See id.
26 Compare Dkt. 32-1, [Proposed] Default Judgment and Entry of Permanent Injunction at 7–8, with Preliminary
Injunction at 1–2.
27 Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation v. Wagnon, 476 F.3d 818, 822 (10th Cir. 2007); see also Kitchen v. Herbert, 755
F.3d 1193, 1208 (10th Cir. 2014) (listing the factors).
Case 1:25-cv-00111-RJS Document 33 Filed 11/25/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 4
of 5

5
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES the Motion without prejudice.28 Pure
Maintenance shall have twenty-one days to file a renewed Motion addressing the appropriate
amount of damages and whether it is entitled to permanent injunctive relief beyond the relief
provided in the Preliminary Injunction.
SO ORDERED this 25th day of November, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
ROBERT J. SHELBY
United States District Judge
28 Dkt. 32.
Case 1:25-cv-00111-RJS Document 33 Filed 11/25/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 5
of 5