Hey Fingerhut–You May Want to Retain Counsel in this One
As we’ve explored a few times, “strategic default” in TCPA class actions is not a great idea. The Court will certify the case in your absence and then order you to respond to bulk discovery before entering a crushing judgment against you.
In individual suits things are a bit less dire and, I suppose, allowing a default in some instances might not be the end of the world.
But in Spring v. Fingerhut Cos., Case No. 2:20-cv-02212-GMN-NJK, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146746 (D. Nv. August 4, 2021) the plaintiff is seeking a default judgment in excess of $100k against Fingerhut, and I have to assume those guys just didn’t know about the case.
Spring is interesting because the default judgment plaintiff sought was denied when they are so often granted.
In the first instance, the court found the plaintiff’s complaint failed to establish personal jurisdiction. Secondly, the court simply refused to award the ~$101k in damages Plaintiff sought on the 70 allegedly unwanted calls without some showing as to the harm caused by the calls.
So Fingerhut avoids a large-dollar judgment (for now). Will they retain counsel in time to stave off a big loss?
We’ll find out soon.