GHOSTED: Brandon Callier Wins Default Judgment Against Absentee Defendant

There’s a basic assumption baked into all litigation—if a defendant doesn’t show up, the plaintiff is likely to prevail. Pro se plaintiff Brandon Callier was able to score such a win in Callier v. Vanguard Alliance Group LLC d/b/a EduPrep Solutions, LLC et. al., No. 3:25-CV-00047-LS, 2026 WL 896228 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2026) when Vanguard Alliance Group, LLC, doing business as EduPrep Solutions, LLC (“Vanguard”), one of several defendants in the case, simply did not appear. Callier had alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), the Texas Business and Commerce Code (“TBCC”), and breach of contract. The TCPA and TBCC violations were brought against Vanguard and co-defendant William Chung jointly and severally.

Despite being served with a copy of the summons and complaint by Callier, Vanguard did not take any action in response to the litigation. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, courts may enter default judgment against defendants who fail to plead or otherwise defend a case. When determining whether or not to enter default judgment, courts apply a three-part test: (1) whether default judgment is procedurally warranted; (2) whether the plaintiff’s allegations of facts are well pleaded and provide a sufficient basis for entering default judgment; and (3) what form and amount of relief, if any, a plaintiff should receive.

Determining whether default judgment is warranted requires the courts to weigh six factors: (1) whether material issues of fact exist; (2) whether the plaintiff has suffered substantial prejudice; (3) whether the grounds for default are clearly established; (4) whether the default was caused by a good-faith mistake or excusable neglect; (5) the harshness of imposing a default judgment; and (6) whether the court would feel compelled to set aside the judgment if the defendant later moved to do so.

First, the court found that there were no disputes of material fact—by default, Vanguard admitted Callier’s well-pleaded allegations when they failed to appear. Second, this failure to respond had stalled the resolution of the case for over a year, causing “substantial prejudice” to Callier. Third, the grounds for default were clearly established because Vanguard never responded to the summons and service was found to be proper under Florida law, where one of Vanguard’s registered agents and a co-defendant in the case resided. Fourth, no available evidence suggested that Vanguard’s failure to appear was due to a good-faith mistake or excusable neglect. Fifth, because Vanguard had ample opportunity to respond to Callier’s complaint and did not do so, default judgment was not considered unduly harsh. Lastly, nothing suggested that the court would need to set aside the judgment against Vanguard. Callier actually dismissed his claims against William Chung, who he had alleged was jointly and severally liable for the TCPA and TBCC causes of action in the interests of moving the case forward.

Having satisfied the first prong of the test, the court noted that Callier’s claims under the TCPA and TBCC were well-pleaded, moving on to calculate his damages. The court granted Callier $2,500 in statutory damages five TCPA violations, $25,000 in statutory damages for five TBCC violations, and $405 in costs for filing fees. Vanguard is now left on the hook for damages that may have been avoidable.

Callier’s win is a good reminder that ignoring risks in the hope that they go away or letting things fall through the cracks is hardly an ideal litigation strategy.