Hubbuch v. Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn LLP

Background

Edward B. Hubbuch, proceeding without a lawyer, filed the action on July 2, 2025, against Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn LLP (MJRF), attorney Amy Gavlik, and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. Hubbuch alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and state law arising from a state-court collection action brought by Chase and represented by MJRF. According to the complaint, the state-court action remained pending and unresolved.

Hubbuch alleged that defendants gave untimely or insufficient responses to his requests for a bill of particulars and clarification. He also alleged that Chase reported his account as “charged off” without indicating that the debt was being litigated or disputed, refused to correct the credit-report entry, and that MJRF sent him a debt-collection letter that did not comply with federal law.

Pending Motions and Procedural History

MJRF was served on July 15, 2025, making its response due August 5. Gavlik was served on July 18, making her response due August 8. Chase was served on July 22, and the court extended Chase’s response deadline to September 11 with the parties’ consent.

MJRF filed a notice of appearance and opposed Hubbuch’s effort to obtain a default judgment on August 7, two days after its response deadline. Later that day, the Clerk issued a certificate of default against MJRF, and Hubbuch moved for a default judgment seeking statutory, actual, and punitive damages, costs, and declaratory relief.

On August 8, MJRF and Gavlik moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that Hubbuch lacked Article III standing because he had not alleged a concrete injury. MJRF withdrew its part of that motion on August 11 but reserved the right to refile it if the certificate of default were vacated; Gavlik retained the motion as to herself. On August 12, MJRF moved under Rule 55(c) to vacate the certificate of default and opposed Hubbuch’s default-judgment motion.

Court’s Order

The court did not grant or deny the default-judgment motion, MJRF’s motion to vacate the default, or Gavlik’s motion to dismiss. Instead, it ordered Hubbuch and MJRF to meet and confer in good faith before further litigation over the default-related motions. The court noted that default judgments are disfavored and that courts prefer resolving disputes on their merits.

If the parties could not resolve those issues, Hubbuch’s reply concerning his default-judgment motion and his opposition to MJRF’s motion to vacate were due August 20, 2025; MJRF’s reply on its motion to vacate was due August 27, 2025. The court separately set August 20 for Hubbuch’s memorandum opposing Gavlik’s dismissal motion and August 27 for his reply concerning that motion.

Classification

This is a procedural order. It set negotiations and briefing deadlines and did not reach the merits of Hubbuch’s claims or decide whether the default should stand, whether a default judgment should be entered, or whether Gavlik’s claims should be dismissed.