THE COST OF STAYING SILENT: California Court Grants Default Judgment on TCPA Claim Despite Uncertainty Over Whether a Genuine Factual Dispute Existed

A new pattern? Another defendant gets sued and doesn’t bother showing up.

Some judges are willing to look past a defendant’s failure to appear and scrutinize the merits of a plaintiff’s claims, however, Buzzmarketing wasn’t so fortunate.

In Gray v. Buzzmarketing, LLC, 2026 WL 3341179 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2026), a California federal court granted the Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment after finding that the Eitel factors weighed in favor of entering default judgment.

Buzzmarketing’s failure to appear left the Plaintiff’s allegations essentially unchallenged. Here’s what happened.

Plaintiff, Danielle Lynette Gray filed a putative class action complaint alleging that Buzzmarketing made two unsolicited calls on December 23, 2025, and January 14, 2026. Specifically, Gray alleged that both calls resulted in prerecorded voicemails advertising debt relief services.

Gray alleged that she recognized the messages as artificial or prerecorded based on the speaker’s unnaturally uniform tone, cadence, and lack of ordinary human speech characteristics.

Buzzmarketing never showed up to defend itself, therefore, the Clerk entered default on June 16, 2026, and Gray subsequently moved for default judgment.

Now, while a Defendant failing to appear doesn’t automatically mean the plaintiff wins, it certainly creates an easier path to victory. After all, without a defendant to challenge the allegations, the plaintiff faces little opposition in establishing liability.

Having determined that Gray satisfied the procedural requirements for obtaining default judgment, the Court turned to the Eitel factors to determine whether entering judgment was appropriate.

In considering the possibility of prejudice, the Court found that denying default judgment would leave Gray without another avenue to recover damages.

As to the merits of Gray’s claims and the sufficiency of the Complaint, the Court concluded that Plaintiff adequately alleged TCPA violations based on two unsolicited calls using artificial or prerecorded voices without her consent. And because Buzzmarketing failed to respond, those well-pleaded allegations were taken as true.

With respect to the amount at stake, the Court concluded that Gray’s request for $1,000 in statutory damages was authorized under the TCPA and reasonably proportional to the alleged harm caused.

As for the possibility of disputed material facts, the Court acknowledged that Buzzmarketing’s failure to appear made it unclear whether any genuine factual dispute existed.

And that is precisely the advantage a plaintiff gains when a defendant fails to defend itself. With the well-pleaded allegations concerning liability taken as true, there was no opposing position for the Court to consider.

The Court also found no evidence that Buzzmarketing’s failure to defend resulted from excusable neglect, particularly because it had been properly served and failed to respond. And although courts generally favor resolving disputes on their merits, the Court recognized that Buzzmarketing’s absence made such a resolution impractical, if not impossible.

Considering these circumstances, the Court concluded that the Eitel factors weighed in favor of entering default judgment.

Turning to damages, the Court awarded Gray the requested $1,000 in statutory damages, representing $500 for each TCPA violation. The Court also found Gray’s requested litigation costs reasonable and awarded an additional $667.69 for filing fees, service of process, and photocopying and mailing expenses.

In total, Buzzmarketing was ordered to pay $1,667.69 for two calls.

Although Gray initially brought the lawsuit as a putative class action, she subsequently clarified that her Motion for Default Judgment concerned only her individual claims. The Court had already dismissed the class claims without prejudice.

Buzzmarketing may have had defenses to Plaintiff’s allegations, but by failing to participate, it never gave the Court an opportunity to consider them.

So, the lesson here? Any defense is better than no defense.

As always, stay tuned for the latest on TCPAWorld.