Not so fast there, Skippy. A Magistrate Court judge in New York has granted a defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment that had been issued against it in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, ruling that if anyone is “guilty” of “tactical maneuvering” and “procedural gamesmanship” it was the plaintiff who rushed to the court to enter a $301,000 judgment against the defendant less than seven hours after the deadline to respond to the complaint had passed.
The background: The case originated from a collection action filed in state court by a bank against the plaintiff over an unpaid credit card debt. The plaintiff later filed a lawsuit alleging violations of the FDCPA, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and state law.
- Among other claims, the plaintiff accused the defendants of abusive litigation tactics, including sending a noncompliant collection letter, misreporting the status of the debt to credit bureaus, and failing to properly respond to state court discovery requests.
- The defendant law firm was served on July 15, 2025, making its answer due on August 5. The plaintiff filed for a certificate of default on August 6 and, by the evening of August 7, just hours after default was entered, moved for a $301,000 default judgment, arguing that the firm had “deliberately refused to engage with this litigation.”
The ruling: Judge Barbara Moses of the District Court for the Southern District of New York easily sided with the defendant, finding that its brief delay in filing a response was not willful and that the plaintiff suffered no prejudice from the delay. She noted the firm quickly moved to vacate the default and raised potentially meritorious defenses, including standing challenges.
- In her order, the judge pushed back on the plaintiff’s accusations of “tactical maneuvering,” writing: “If any party has been guilty of ‘tactical maneuvering’ and ‘procedural gamesmanship,’ that party is plaintiff, who rushed to default [the defendant] a mere 23 days after serving it with process.”
- Judge Moses emphasized that “litigation in federal court is not a ‘gotcha game,’” quoting prior rulings to stress that defaults are a “weapon of last, rather than first, resort” and that disputes should be resolved on the merits.
- As a result, the court granted the motion to vacate the default, denied the plaintiff’s default judgment motion as moot, and set new deadlines for the parties to brief motions to dismiss. The defendant has subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the suit.
