Brandon Callier obtained a $27,905 default judgment against Vanguard Alliance Group after the company failed to respond to his TCPA and Texas law claims.
A federal court in Texas entered a $27,905 default judgment for Brandon Callier after Vanguard Alliance Group LLC, doing business as EduPrep Solutions LLC, failed to respond to his lawsuit. The case involved claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), the Texas Business and Commerce Code (TBCC), and breach of contract.
The ruling illustrates the consequences a defendant may face when it is properly served but does not appear or defend the case. It also shows that a default judgment is not automatic: the court still examines whether the procedural requirements are met, whether the complaint adequately alleges a claim, and whether the requested relief is supported.
The decision was reported by Troutman Amin, LLP, in an article published on Lexology on April 3, 2026.
The case is 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).
Brandon Callier, proceeding without counsel, brought claims alleging violations of the TCPA and the TBCC, along with breach of contract. His TCPA and TBCC claims named Vanguard and William Chung, seeking joint and several liability.
Vanguard was served with the lawsuit but did not respond or appear. Callier later sought a default judgment against the company. The court considered the request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55.
The resulting judgment was against Vanguard. The report does not describe the judgment as a finding of liability against every defendant named in the lawsuit.
A defendant’s failure to respond does not mean a court must grant everything a plaintiff requests. Under Rule 55, the court considered whether default judgment was procedurally warranted, whether the well-pleaded allegations stated a sufficient basis for relief, and whether the requested amount and type of relief were appropriate.
The court also considered six factors commonly used when deciding whether to enter default judgment:
These factors allowed the court to consider both Vanguard’s failure to participate and the sufficiency of Callier’s claims.
The court found no material factual dispute that prevented entry of default judgment. Because Vanguard had defaulted, it was treated as admitting Callier’s well-pleaded allegations for purposes of the default-judgment analysis.
That procedural effect is important. It does not mean that every statement in a complaint is automatically accepted regardless of whether it is well pleaded. The court’s analysis concerned the allegations that adequately supported the claims.
The court found that Vanguard’s delay had substantially prejudiced Callier. The report states that the case had been delayed for more than a year.
The court therefore considered the lack of a response not simply as a missed deadline, but as a failure to participate that prolonged the litigation and affected the plaintiff’s ability to move the case forward.
The court concluded that Callier’s well-pleaded allegations provided a sufficient basis for the claims on which he sought judgment. The report identifies the TCPA and TBCC claims as adequately pleaded.
This part of the analysis matters because default judgment does not relieve a plaintiff of the obligation to state a legally sufficient claim. The court still examined the complaint rather than treating Vanguard’s silence as a substitute for that review.
The court found no evidence that Vanguard’s failure to respond resulted from a good-faith mistake or excusable neglect.
The report also notes that service was proper under Florida law. The court relied on service involving a registered agent and a co-defendant who resided in Florida. The source does not establish that the co-defendant referenced in this service discussion was necessarily William Chung, so the identities should not be conflated.
The court determined that entering judgment would not be unduly harsh under the circumstances. This consideration formed part of the court’s overall assessment of whether the requested default judgment was appropriate.
The court also found nothing in the record suggesting that a later motion to set aside the judgment would likely succeed. This weighed in favor of entering judgment rather than leaving the case unresolved.
The report states that Callier dismissed his claims against William Chung in order to move the case forward.
That procedural step should be distinguished from the default judgment against Vanguard. The $27,905 judgment described in the report was entered against Vanguard, not jointly against Vanguard and Chung.
The court awarded Callier statutory damages for five violations under each of the two statutes, along with filing costs.
The award was broken down as follows:
The figures reflect the relief awarded in this case. They should not be read as a general statement that every TCPA or TBCC lawsuit involving five alleged violations will result in the same award. The outcome here followed the particular claims, allegations, procedural posture, and relief considered by the court.
The case highlights several practical points about default judgments:
The report’s broader takeaway is that failing to respond to litigation can expose a defendant to a judgment that might otherwise have been contested. That does not establish that Vanguard intentionally ignored the lawsuit or that the claims would necessarily have produced the same result after a contested proceeding.
Brandon Callier was the pro se plaintiff in Callier v. Vanguard Alliance Group LLC d/b/a EduPrep Solutions, LLC et al. He brought claims under the TCPA and the Texas Business and Commerce Code, as well as a breach-of-contract claim.
The judgment described in the report was entered against Vanguard Alliance Group LLC, doing business as EduPrep Solutions LLC.
The court awarded a total of $27,905: $2,500 in TCPA statutory damages, $25,000 in TBCC statutory damages, and $405 in filing costs.
Vanguard had been served but did not respond or appear. The court reviewed the request under Rule 55 and considered the sufficiency of the allegations, the delay, service, the absence of evidence of excusable neglect, the potential harshness of judgment, and whether a later motion to set aside would likely succeed.
The report describes the judgment as being against Vanguard. It also states that Callier dismissed his claims against Chung to move the case forward.
No. The amount awarded here was based on the claims and relief in this particular case. The ruling does not establish a fixed award for other cases.
This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. It summarizes the cited report and should not be treated as a substitute for reviewing the court’s decision or consulting a qualified attorney.
Receive offers, product allerts, styling inspiration and more.
Learn what DNC.com does, how its TCPA and Do Not Call compliance tools work, Litigator Insights, reassigned-number screening, integrations, and its 2026 transition to Sonera.
Lawyer.com connects consumers with attorneys while operating a legal lead-generation and marketing platform. Explore its TCPA consent practices, automated calls, mass tort leads, compliance claims, and lawsuit history.
Cox Media Group has faced significant legal scrutiny, including an FTC Active Listening enforcement action and a Texas TCPA case involving defamation and free speech.
Explore Cox Media Group (CMG), its history, ownership, television and radio operations, digital advertising business, consumer data practices, privacy policy, Active Listening controversy, leadership and 2026 developments.
Explore MindSift’s data marketing platform, the Active Listening controversy, FTC allegations, 2026 consent order, consumer consent issues and legal implications.
Learn about MindSift, its audience intelligence and data platform, consumer and B2B databases, Visitor ID, Buyer Intent, OutReach Mining, advertising services, Active Listening controversy and 2026 FTC order.
