Gaston v. Rothenberg, No. 1:2019cv00164 - Document 22 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER re: 15 MOTION for Default Judgment as to Todd Rothenberg, by Order to Show Cause filed by Deanne Gaston. For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's motion for default judgment is DENIED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr on 11/5/2019) (rro)

Download PDF
Gaston v. Rothenberg USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC#: ----,:-DATE FILED: 11 Doc. 22 /5/ I q UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DEANNE GASTON, Plaintif, 1:19-cv-00164 (ALC) -against- OPINION AND ORDER TODD ROTHENBERG, Defendant. ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., United States District Judge: Plaintif Deanne Gaston brings this action against Defendant Todd Rothenberg, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692. Before the court is Plaintiffs motion or deault judgment. Pl.'s Mot. Deault J., ECF No. 15. After careul consideration, Plaintiffs motion is DENIED. BACKGROUND Plaintif commenced this action on January 7, 2019. See Compl., ECF No. 1. In his Complaint, Plaintif alleges that he received a letter from the Deendant in October of 2018, which indicated the Deendant was hired by 561 Lenox Avenue LLC to collect a debt of $3,600. I. Jr 7. The letter also stated that ailure to pay the debt by October 31, 2018 would result in a lawsuit being brought against Plaintif. I. Jr 8. In addition, the letter ailed to disclose Plaintiffs right to dispute the debt, Deendant's role as a debt collector and that inormation obtained from Plaintif could be used or debt collection purposes. I. Jr!r 9-10. On February 15, 2019, formal service of process was efectuated on the Defendant and consequently, he was required to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint by March 8, 2019. Defendant failed to respond to Plaintiffs Complaint by the required deadline, but instead filed a notice of appearance on March 11, 2019. Subsequently, on April 8, 2019, Plaintif 1 Dockets.Justia.com 2 3 4 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.