Harris v. LVNV Funding, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
CHARLES HARRIS, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-00786-O-BP
§
LVNV FUNDING, LLC, 	§
§
Defendant. 	§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court are the Motion for Entry of Default (ECF No. 24) that Plaintiff Charles
Harris filed on November 5, 2025 and Response (ECF No. 26) that LVNV Funding filed on
November 5, 2025. After considering the pleadings and applicable legal authorities, the
undersigned RECOMMENDS that Chief United States District Judge Reed O’Connor DENY the
Motion for Entry of Default (ECF No. 24).
I. 	BACKGROUND
This is a consumer credit case. On October 3, 2025, Harris filed a Motion for Leave to File
his Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18), which the Court granted on October 15, 2025. ECF No.
22. The Court also ordered LVNV Funding to file its response to the Amended Complaint by
October 29, 2025. Id.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A. 	Entry of default
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 governs the entry of default and default judgment. A
default occurs “when a defendant has failed to plead or otherwise respond to the complaint within
the time required by the Federal Rules.” N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 84 F.3d 137, 141 (5th Cir.
Case 4:25-cv-00786-O-BP Document 27 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
1996); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) (noting default occurs where the defendant “has failed to
plead or otherwise defend” against the complaint).
The Fifth Circuit has “adopted a policy in favor of resolving cases on their merits and
against the use of default judgments.” Rogers v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 167 F.3d 933, 936
(5th Cir. 1999) (citing Lindsey v. Prive Corp., 161 F.3d 886, 892-93 (5th Cir. 1998). Although the
Fifth Circuit does not favor default and default judgments, this policy is “counterbalanced by
considerations of social goals, justice and expediency, a weighing process . . . within the domain
of the trial judge’s discretion.” In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Prods. Liab. Litig., 742 F.3d
576, 594 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Rogers, 167 F.3d at 936). But default judgment remains “a
drastic remedy, not favored by the Federal Rules.” Sun Bank of Ocala v. Pelican Homestead &
Sav. Ass’n, 874 F.2d 274, 276 (5th Cir. 1989); see also Shipco, 814 F.2d at 1014 (calling default
judgments “draconian”).
III. 	ANALYSIS
Here, entry of default is not appropriate. While LVNV Funding did not respond to Harris’
amended complaint by the October 29, 2025 deadline, it filed its response six days later and
explained the delay was inadvertent and not the result of negligence or conscious disregard. ECF
No. 26. Because LVNV Funding provided good cause for the delay and Harris will suffer no harm
or prejudice because of the delay, entry of default would not be appropriate under these
circumstances.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Chief United States District Judge
Reed O’Connor DENY Harris’ Motion for Entry of Default (ECF No. 24).
Case 4:25-cv-00786-O-BP Document 27 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all parties
in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions,
and recommendation must file specific written objections within fourteen days after being served
with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). To be specific, an objection must
identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the
objection, 	and 	specify 	the 	place 	in 	the 	magistrate 	judge’s 	findings, 	conclusions, 	and
recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates
by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file
specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and
legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except
upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th
Cir. 1996) (en banc), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the
time to file objections to 14 days).
SIGNED on January 7, 2026.
______________________________________
Hal R. Ray, Jr.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-00786-O-BP Document 27 Filed 01/07/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>