Kramer Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Delphinium Ventures Corporation

N.D. Ohio

Kramer Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Delphinium Ventures Corporation

DecidedApril 7, 2026

Docket3:24-cv-02228

StatusUnknown

This text of Kramer Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Delphinium Ventures Corporation (Kramer Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Delphinium Ventures Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kramer Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Delphinium Ventures Corporation, (N.D. Ohio 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Kramer Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-2228

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

Delphinium Ventures Corporation,

Defendant.

On December 17, 2025, the Clerk granted Plaintiffs’ application for default and entered defaulted against Defendant. (Doc. No. 12). More than three months have passed since default was entered and Plaintiffs have filed no motion for default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). Within thirty days of this Order, Plaintiffs shall file a motion for default judgment or show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Should Plaintiffs choose to file a motion for default judgment, that motion must be substantively sufficient. More particularly, in the motion, Plaintiffs must at least identify allegations in the complaint that plausibly state a claim for relief and offer some development of legal arguments in support of default judgment. See, e.g., Grover v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 581 F. Supp. 3d 930, 950 (N.D. Ohio 2022) (“[T]he Court ‘is in the business of resolving the legal arguments presented to it, not in creating a party’s inferred argument for him and then passing judgment on it.’”) (quoting Lyon v. Yellow Transp., Inc., No. 2:08-cv-464, 2009 WL 1604807, at *15 (S.D. Ohio June 8, 2009), aff’d 379 F. App’x 452 (6th Cir. 2010)). After all, when considering a motion for default judgment “the well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint are accepted as true for the purpose of determining liability, [but] the Court must still determine whether those facts are sufficient to state a claim for relief with respect to plaintiff’s claims … for which the plaintiff seeks default judgment.” Zinganything, LLC v. Import Store, 158 F. Supp. 3d 668, 672 (N.D. Ohio 2016).

So Ordered.

s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Kramer Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-2228

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

Delphinium Ventures Corporation,

Defendant.

On December 17, 2025, the Clerk granted Plaintiffs’ application for default and entered defaulted against Defendant. (Doc. No. 12). More than three months have passed since default was entered and Plaintiffs have filed no motion for default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). Within thirty days of this Order, Plaintiffs shall file a motion for default judgment or show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Should Plaintiffs choose to file a motion for default judgment, that motion must be substantively sufficient. More particularly, in the motion, Plaintiffs must at least identify allegations in the complaint that plausibly state a claim for relief and offer some development of legal arguments in support of default judgment. See, e.g., Grover v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 581 F. Supp. 3d 930, 950 (N.D. Ohio 2022) (“[T]he Court ‘is in the business of resolving the legal arguments presented to it, not in creating a party’s inferred argument for him and then passing judgment on it.’”) (quoting Lyon v. Yellow Transp., Inc., No. 2:08-cv-464, 2009 WL 1604807, at *15 (S.D. Ohio June 8, 2009), aff’d 379 F. App’x 452 (6th Cir. 2010)). After all, when considering a motion for default judgment “the well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint are accepted as true for the purpose of determining liability, [but] the Court must still determine whether those facts are sufficient to state a claim for relief with respect to plaintiff’s claims … for which the plaintiff seeks default judgment.” Zinganything, LLC v. Import Store, 158 F. Supp. 3d 668, 672 (N.D. Ohio 2016).

So Ordered.

s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kramer Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Delphinium Ventures Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kramer-enterprises-inc-et-al-v-delphinium-ventures-corporation-ohnd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack