CACH LLC Is Suing Me in New York — What Do I Do?

CACH LLC is a debt buyer headquartered in Denver, Colorado, that operated as a subsidiary of SquareTwo Financial Corporation. SquareTwo built its business by purchasing portfolios of charged-off consumer debt from major issuers — Citibank, Bank of America, Chase, Capital One, HSBC, and GE Capital — and collecting on those accounts through litigation and a national network of contingency-fee collection law firms.

In March 2017, SquareTwo filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York. The bankruptcy involved an asset sale and a wind-down of the operating businesses. After bankruptcy, new CACH collection activity largely stopped, but pre-bankruptcy lawsuits continued through the courts, judgments became eligible for renewal, and portions of the portfolio were transferred to other entities through bankruptcy-court-approved sales.

The 2017 bankruptcy is the single most important fact in any CACH lawsuit pending today. It created a documented break in the company’s operations, and any plaintiff suing in the CACH name must show — with admissible evidence — exactly how the right to collect traveled from the original creditor, through CACH and the SquareTwo bankruptcy estate, to whoever is named in the complaint today.

For a New York defendant, this is especially significant because the bankruptcy itself was filed in New York federal court. The bankruptcy schedules, sale orders, and confirmation pleadings are all matters of New York federal record. New York state courts looking at a CACH complaint can take judicial notice of the bankruptcy timeline, but the plaintiff still bears the affirmative obligation under New York pleading rules to show how it acquired authority over your specific account.

If you were just served with a New York Civil Court or Supreme Court complaint naming CACH LLC, the lawsuit very likely originated years ago — possibly even before SquareTwo’s 2017 bankruptcy. CACH bought portfolios of charged-off credit card accounts in bulk from major issuers, and New York was among the largest active jurisdictions for its collection counsel. Some cases were filed in 2015 or 2016 and have only now reached service. Others may be renewals of older judgments. And in some cases, the actual claimant is a successor entity that picked up the CACH portfolio out of bankruptcy and is now suing in the CACH name.

Before anything else, read the case caption carefully. Compare the complaint’s filing date to the March 2017 bankruptcy filing date. If filed before March 2017, it is a pre-bankruptcy case. If filed after, ask: who actually has authority to prosecute in the CACH name today?

What the plaintiff is hoping for is a default judgment. CFPB studies confirm the majority of New York consumers sued in debt collection cases never file an Answer. They get scared, they do not understand what to do, or they assume the lawsuit will go away. When that happens, the New York court enters a default judgment.

A New York default judgment lets the plaintiff garnish up to 10% of your gross wages, restrain your bank accounts (potentially freezing your entire balance up to the judgment amount), and pursue other remedies. New York’s bank restraint rules are aggressive — a single restraint can lock down your operating account for weeks. Filing a real Answer flips the case from a near-automatic default into a real lawsuit that must satisfy New York’s Consumer Credit Fairness Act — and the bankruptcy gap makes that satisfaction unusually hard for CACH plaintiffs.

New York gives you twenty days to file your Answer if you were served personally, or thirty days if you were served by another method such as substituted service or service on a person of suitable age and discretion at your home. This deadline is set by CPLR § 3012.

You count the days starting the day after service. Weekends count. If the last day falls on a weekend or court holiday, the deadline rolls to the next business day. Check the affidavit of service filed with the court to confirm exactly how you were served — that determines whether you have 20 days or 30.

If you miss the deadline, the plaintiff can apply for a default judgment. New York courts can vacate defaults for excusable default and meritorious defense under CPLR § 5015(a)(1) within one year of the judgment, but you must file a motion, you must show both elements, and the court has discretion. Vacating a default is much harder than answering on time.

For CACH cases specifically, the urgency is double: the deadline can be as short as 20 days, and the chain-of-title and CPLR § 3016(j) defenses created by the bankruptcy are only available if you file an Answer that raises them. A defaulted defendant never gets to challenge the bankruptcy gap. Mark your deadline today.

New York’s Consumer Credit Fairness Act is one of the strongest debt-buyer pleading statutes in the country, and it interacts with the SquareTwo bankruptcy in a way that is unusually unfavorable to CACH plaintiffs. CPLR § 3016(j), effective May 7, 2022, requires every consumer-credit complaint to plead six specific elements on the face: the original creditor; the original account number (last four digits); the date of default; a statement that the SOL has not expired; the full chain of title from the original creditor to the plaintiff; and an itemization of the charge-off balance and post-charge-off interest and fees. The complaint must also attach the signed contract or, where unavailable, the most recent charge-off statement.

In a CACH case, the chain-of-title pleading has to bridge the bankruptcy. The plaintiff must plead each transfer with dates: original creditor → CACH LLC → SquareTwo bankruptcy estate (with reference to the relevant sale order) → current owner (if applicable). Each link must be supported. This is where CACH complaints regularly fail. The 2017 Chapter 11 plan involved asset sales and transfers approved by the bankruptcy court, but most CACH state-court complaints do not reference those bankruptcy court orders or the schedules identifying the specific accounts transferred.

Missing elements support dismissal under CPLR § 3211(a)(3). New York case law supports the same result independent of § 3016(j): Palisades Collection v. Kedik (4th Dep’t 2009) holds that the chain of title must appear on the face of the complaint. The combined effect of Kedik and § 3016(j) is that a CACH complaint that does not affirmatively plead the bankruptcy-era transfers is vulnerable to dismissal at the threshold.

New York has one of the shortest statutes of limitations on consumer credit card debt in the country: three years under CPLR § 214. The clock runs from the date of your last payment or the charge-off date, whichever is later.

This short SOL is decisive in most CACH cases. CACH portfolios are old by definition — accounts charged off years before purchase, then held through the bankruptcy, then prosecuted by successor entities. An account that defaulted in 2019 and was charged off in 2020 has a New York SOL that expires in 2023. A lawsuit filed in 2024 or 2025 is time-barred. Calculate carefully from your last payment.

The statute of limitations is an "affirmative defense." It does not happen automatically. The court will not throw out the case just because the debt is old. You must raise the defense yourself in your Answer. Note that under CPLR § 3016(j), the plaintiff is now required to affirmatively state on the face of the complaint that the SOL has not expired — but this does not relieve you of the obligation to plead it as a defense.

New York is also affected by the Consumer Credit Fairness Act’s prohibition on revival: under General Obligations Law § 17-101, an acknowledgment of debt does not revive a time-barred consumer credit claim. A partial payment you made years after charge-off does not restart the clock. This is uniquely defendant-favorable in New York.

Most credit card agreements contain a clause requiring binding arbitration administered by AAA or JAMS. When CACH bought your account, it bought it subject to whatever terms were in the original cardholder agreement — meaning the arbitration clause may now belong to whoever is currently prosecuting the case.

This is one of the most powerful and least-used defenses for New York defendants. AAA and JAMS commercial filing fees for a business claimant typically run from $1,500 to $5,000 or more, plus the arbitrator’s hourly fees. If the disputed debt is $3,200, the cost of arbitration may exceed the recoverable amount.

When a New York defendant files a motion to compel arbitration under CPLR § 7503(a) — and the court grants it — the plaintiff must choose between paying thousands in arbitration filing fees or abandoning the case. Bankruptcy-era successor plaintiffs are particularly likely to abandon, because they are working with thin margins on portfolios acquired at deep discount.

New York courts will compel arbitration if the agreement is valid and the dispute falls within its scope. To use this defense, you need a copy of the original cardholder agreement showing the arbitration clause. The plaintiff must produce that document in discovery. In a CACH case, the demand for the original agreement also tests whether the plaintiff has the underlying account documentation — which CPLR § 3016(j) already requires them to attach to the complaint.

Your Answer is your formal response to the complaint. A good Answer in a New York CACH case does three things: it admits or denies each numbered allegation, it raises every applicable affirmative defense, and — where appropriate — it raises a counterclaim.

For the admit-or-deny portion, do not admit anything you do not actually know. If the complaint alleges that you owed Citibank $3,217.42 as of a charge-off date you do not remember, deny that allegation for lack of knowledge. CACH plaintiffs frequently allege specific dollar amounts and dates that come from a portfolio data file rather than from your actual account records.

The affirmative defenses to consider in a New York CACH Answer include lack of standing or chain of title (the plaintiff cannot prove ownership through the SquareTwo bankruptcy under Palisades v. Kedik); failure to plead and attach required documentation under CPLR § 3016(j); statute of limitations under CPLR § 214; failure to state a claim; account stated cannot be established; arbitration clause; lack of foundation for business records; and — uniquely in CACH cases — failure to plead and prove proper bankruptcy-court authority to prosecute the claim.

What you should never do: do not admit you owe the debt. Do not call the plaintiff’s collection counsel. Do not promise to pay. Do not ignore the lawsuit. The 20- or 30-day clock under CPLR § 3012 is unforgiving.

New York has strong consumer protection laws for debt collection defendants, and most consumers being sued by CACH have no idea these laws exist.

The Consumer Credit Fairness Act, codified primarily at CPLR § 3016(j) and related provisions, is the most important pleading statute in the country for debt-buyer cases. It requires six specific facial-pleading elements plus attached account documentation. In a CACH case, the chain-of-title element runs straight into the SquareTwo bankruptcy and exposes plaintiffs who cannot document their bankruptcy-era acquisition of authority over your account.

New York General Business Law § 601 prohibits unfair and deceptive debt collection practices. Although the statute does not create a private right of action as broad as some state UDAP laws, the New York Attorney General can enforce it, and conduct violating § 601 can support related claims.

In addition, the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applies to CACH and any successor entity acting as a debt collector. The FDCPA prohibits false statements, misrepresentations of the amount or character of the debt, and abusive collection tactics — including filing suit on time-barred debt or without proper standing. FDCPA violations entitle you to up to $1,000 in statutory damages plus attorney’s fees in federal court.

The combination of CPLR § 3016(j) facial pleading, New York’s 3-year SOL with no revival, and FDCPA counterclaims gives New York CACH defendants powerful leverage. Plaintiffs frequently dismiss these cases when they see a real Answer.

After you file your Answer with the New York Civil Court or Supreme Court clerk and serve a copy on the plaintiff’s attorney, the case enters discovery. Discovery is the formal process by which each side requests documents and information from the other.

In a CACH case, this is where the bankruptcy chain-of-title defense gets tested. You can serve a CPLR § 3120 request for documents demanding every assignment document, every bill of sale, the original cardholder agreement, the complete account history, and the bankruptcy court orders authorizing transfer of the account. The plaintiff must respond within twenty days. If they cannot produce a clean chain that bridges the SquareTwo bankruptcy, the case is in serious trouble.

What very often happens next is a settlement offer. The economics for the plaintiff change dramatically once they realize they are facing a defendant who is going to make them prove their case. New York practitioners report that debt-buyer cases with CPLR § 3016(j) defects and chain-of-title issues commonly settle for twenty-five to forty cents on the dollar.

If the case does not settle, it proceeds to a court date. New York City Civil Court handles cases up to $50,000; small claims handles cases up to $10,000 with simplified procedures. State Supreme Court handles larger cases. Either way, the same defenses apply.

A meaningful share of CACH cases get voluntarily dismissed after discovery, especially when the bankruptcy gap is exposed or CPLR § 3016(j) elements are missing. Many more settle. Defendants who file real Answers fare far better than defendants who default.

Answered is a self-help legal platform built specifically for pro se defendants in consumer debt collection lawsuits. The New York playbook was reviewed by a New York-licensed consumer-rights attorney and is built around the specific statutes and rules that govern CACH cases — CPLR § 3016(j), CPLR § 214, and Palisades v. Kedik.

When you upload your summons and complaint, Answered does the following: it extracts the key dates including your service method and your 20- or 30-day Answer deadline; it scans for the procedural defects most commonly found in CACH pleadings, including missing chain-of-title documents, defective CPLR § 3016(j) disclosures, missing bankruptcy-era transfer authorizations, and missing post-charge-off itemization; it identifies whether your debt may be time-barred under New York’s 3-year SOL; it checks whether an arbitration clause is likely available; and it generates a court-ready Answer with the affirmative defenses that apply to your case, including CACH-specific bankruptcy chain-of-title language.

The Answer document is formatted for the appropriate New York court (Civil Court, Supreme Court, or City Court), includes the proper caption and case style, and contains the affirmative defenses. It also generates a discovery request package designed to expose any gap in the chain of title between CACH, the SquareTwo bankruptcy estate, and the current plaintiff.

Pricing is simple: free to start, and a one-time $99 charge to unlock and download your final documents. There is no subscription. There is no per-document fee.

This product exists because the founder, John DiSalle, was sued by a debt buyer, researched his own defense end-to-end and built Answered from that experience so other New York defendants do not have to assemble it from scratch.