Celestina Gamez, Respondent, v. EasyEx MO OFallon, LLC, Appellant.
Decision date: January 13, 2026ED113623
Case Parties & Judges
Synopsis
This Missouri appellate case addressed whether a company could set aside a default judgment that was entered against it more than one year earlier in an employment discrimination lawsuit. Celestina Gamez sued her former employer, EasyEx MO OFallon, LLC, claiming violations of the Missouri Human Rights Act and Workers' Compensation Law. After EasyEx was properly served but failed to respond, the trial court entered a default judgment in March 2024 awarding Gamez damages and attorney's fees. EasyEx did not attempt to challenge this judgment until April 2025—over one year later—when Gamez began collection efforts. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of EasyEx's motion to set aside the default judgment. Under Missouri Rule 74.05(d), parties seeking to overturn a default judgment must act "within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the entry of the default judgment." The court rejected EasyEx's argument that the one-year deadline should run from when they received notice of the judgment rather than when it was entered, emphasizing that defaulting parties forfeit their right to notice under Missouri law. The court also awarded Gamez attorney's fees for defending the appeal, since she was the prevailing party under the Missouri Human Rights Act. This decision reinforces that Missouri's one-year deadline for challenging default judgments is strictly enforced and cannot be extended based on claims of lack of notice. For businesses and other litigants, this case underscores the critical importance of maintaining current contact information with registered agents and monitoring for potential lawsuits. Once a default judgment is entered, parties have limited time to act, and waiting until collection efforts begin is likely too late to seek relief from the court.
Syllabus
EasyEx MO Ofallon, LLC appeals the circuit court's judgment overruling its motion to set aside the default judgment entered against it. Because EasyEx did not seek to set aside the default judgment within the one-year time limit provided by Rule 74.05(d), the circuit court did not err. The judgment is affirmed. Gamez's motion for attorney's fees on appeal is sustained and remanded.
Factual and Procedural Background
In November 2023, Gamez filed a petition against EasyEx, her former employer, asserting violations of the Missouri Human Rights Act ("MHRA") and Missouri's Workers' Compensation Law. EasyEx's registered agent was served in December 2023. The circuit court conducted a hearing and entered a default judgment against EasyEx on March 8, 2024. The judgment awarded Gamez actual damages, attorney's fees, and pre-judgment interest.
One year later, in March 2025, Gamez sought to collect on the judgment. Gamez sent letters to EasyEx's headquarters and its registered agent demanding payment of the judgment. When EasyEx failed to make payment, Gamez instigated garnishment proceedings in April 2025.
EasyEx filed a motion to set aside the default judgment on April 18, 2025. Following a hearing on EasyEx's motion, the circuit court entered its judgment overruling the motion to set aside the default judgment. EasyEx appeals.
Standard of Review
A judgment overruling a Rule 74.05(d) motion to set aside a default judgment is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Steele v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 688 S.W.3d 192, 196-97 (Mo. banc 2024). Because there is "a strong preference for deciding cases on the merits" rather than by default, "courts have broader discretion when sustaining a motion to set aside a default judgment than when overruling such a motion." In re Marriage of Callahan, 277 S.W.3d 643, 644 (Mo. banc 2009).
Analysis
Rule 74.05(d) allows a party to set aside a default judgment by filing a motion and demonstrating there are "facts constituting a meritorious defense" and "good cause." The motion must "be made within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the entry of the default judgment." The moving party's failure "to prove any of these requirements mandates denying the motion to set aside the default judgment." 4021 Iowa, LLC v. K&A Delmar Prop., LLC, 681 S.W.3d 309, 316 (Mo. App. 2023).
The plain language of Rule 74.05(d) required EasyEx to file its motion to set aside within one year of the entry of the default judgment. EasyEx did not do so, and as a result, the circuit court did not err in overruling the motion to set aside the default judgment.
EasyEx argues that Rule 74.05(d)'s one-year limitation should be measured from the date on which the party has notice of the judgment. This argument is unpersuasive. First, Rule 74.05(d) specifies that the one-year limitation runs from the "entry of the default judgment." Second, when EasyEx was found to be in default, it was no longer entitled to notice of the proceedings or any judgment entered. Irvin v. Palmer, 580 S.W.3d 15, 20 (Mo. App. 2019).
Attorney's Fees
Gamez filed a motion for attorney's fees on appeal that was taken with the case. The MHRA allows a court to award attorney's fees to a prevailing party. Section 213.111.2, RSMo 2020. Gamez prevailed on her claims that EasyEx violated the MHRA and successfully defended the judgment on appeal. Because Gamez succeeded on a significant issue, she is a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees.
Gamez's motion for attorney's fees on appeal is sustained. The case is remanded to the circuit court to determine Gamez's reasonable attorney's fees arising from the appeal.
Conclusion
The circuit court's judgment overruling EasyEx's motion to set aside the default judgment is affirmed. Gamez's motion for attorney's fees on appeal is remanded to the circuit court.
JOHN P. TORBITZKY, CHIEF JUDGE James M. Dowd, Judge Brice Sechrest, Special Judge, concur.