Gorden
v. Discover Bank – ED Pa. – April 8, 2015
Consumer/debtor
sued Bank after credit Bank’s credit card case against her was dismissed on
statute-of-limitations grounds. Bank
failed to answer the complaint and a default judgment was entered. Bank sought to have the judgment opened,
claiming that it never got the complaint.
The
court rejected the bank’s motion, noting that the “Complaint was served at an
Ohio address from which Discover initiates most, if not all, of its collection
actions nationwide, including the underlying suit that was brought against
Plaintiff here. Although the record unambiguously confirms delivery to that
address, Discover maintains that it never received the Complaint, and further
contends that, although it operates its credit card and other lending businesses
nationwide, it only “does business” from a single branch location in
Greenville, Delaware.
The
court stated that it was “satisfied that service here met the requirements of
Ohio law, and the requirements of due process, and see no purpose to be served
in requiring a consumer to navigate a labyrinth of complex corporate agreements
as a prerequisite to filing a countersuit alleging improper debt collection
practices. Accordingly, the Motion to Vacate will be denied.”
