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 an important fact to check in any CACH lawsuit pending today. It created a documented break in the company’s operations, and any plaintiff suing in the CACH name may need admissible evidence showing 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 matters of New York federal record. New York state courts may consider the bankruptcy timeline where properly presented, but the plaintiff still has to satisfy New York pleading and proof rules for your specific account.

If you were just served with a New York Civil Court or Supreme Court complaint naming CACH LLC, the lawsuit may have 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 larger 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 may be 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 may be a pre-bankruptcy case. If filed after, ask: who actually has authority to prosecute in the CACH name today?

What the plaintiff is often hoping for is a default judgment. CFPB studies confirm that many 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 may enter a default judgment.

A New York default judgment can let the plaintiff garnish wages, restrain bank accounts, and pursue other remedies. Filing an Answer changes the case from a default path into a contested lawsuit where the plaintiff may need to satisfy New York’s Consumer Credit Fairness Act and prove the debt.

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, 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 chain-of-title and CPLR § 3016(j) issues tied to the bankruptcy are usually preserved by actually filing an Answer. A defaulted defendant may lose the chance to test those issues. Mark your deadline today.

New York’s Consumer Credit Fairness Act created detailed debt-buyer pleading rules, and those rules can interact with the SquareTwo bankruptcy in important ways. CPLR § 3016(j), effective May 7, 2022, requires consumer-credit complaints to plead specific elements such as the original creditor, account identifier, default date, statute-of-limitations statement, chain of title, and itemization of the charge-off balance and post-charge-off interest and fees. The complaint may also need to attach the signed contract or, where unavailable, the most recent charge-off statement.

In a CACH case, the chain-of-title pleading may need to address the bankruptcy. The plaintiff may need to identify transfers such as original creditor → CACH LLC → SquareTwo bankruptcy estate → current owner, if that is the claimed chain. The 2017 Chapter 11 plan involved asset sales and transfers approved by the bankruptcy court, so sale orders and schedules may matter if the plaintiff relies on those transfers.

Missing required elements may support a motion or defense under CPLR § 3211(a)(3), CPLR § 3016(j), and related standing law, depending on the complaint and court. Palisades Collection v. Kedik is one chain-of-title case to review, but the result depends on your facts and procedural posture.

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

This short SOL can matter in CACH cases because the portfolios may be old. An account that defaulted in 2019 and was charged off in 2020 may have a New York SOL issue if a lawsuit was filed in 2024 or 2025. Calculate carefully from your last payment and the dates shown in the complaint.

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 generally need to raise the defense in your Answer or it may be waived. 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 you should still preserve the issue if it applies.

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. Review any payment or acknowledgment dates carefully before relying on this issue.

Many credit card agreements contain a clause requiring binding arbitration administered by AAA or JAMS. If CACH or a successor plaintiff claims rights under the original cardholder agreement, the arbitration clause may be relevant too.

Arbitration can affect forum, cost, timing, and leverage. AAA and JAMS commercial filing fees for a business claimant can be significant, and that may influence a plaintiff’s next steps. But arbitration is not a guaranteed dismissal path. The clause must exist, it must apply to the dispute, and the court must enforce it.

New York courts will compel arbitration only if the agreement is valid and the dispute falls within its scope. To evaluate this issue, you need a copy of the original cardholder agreement showing the arbitration clause. In a CACH case, asking for the original agreement can also test whether the plaintiff has the underlying account documentation.

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 supported affirmative defenses, 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, you may be able to deny that allegation for lack of knowledge. CACH plaintiffs may 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 may include lack of standing or chain of title; failure to plead and attach required documentation under CPLR § 3016(j); statute of limitations under CPLR § 214-i; failure to state a claim; account stated cannot be established; arbitration clause; lack of foundation for business records; and failure to plead or prove proper bankruptcy-court authority to prosecute the claim.

Do not admit you owe the debt if you do not know that is true. Be careful before promising to pay or discussing facts with the plaintiff’s collection counsel. Do not ignore the lawsuit. The 20- or 30-day clock under CPLR § 3012 is unforgiving.

New York has useful consumer protection and debt-collection rules for defendants, but each issue depends on the facts and the court’s ruling.

The Consumer Credit Fairness Act, codified primarily at CPLR § 3016(j) and related provisions, requires specific facial-pleading elements plus account documentation in many consumer-credit cases. In a CACH case, the chain-of-title element may run into the SquareTwo bankruptcy and create issues to preserve if the complaint does not explain the bankruptcy-era transfer.

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 may support related claims.

In addition, the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act may apply to CACH or a 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. FDCPA remedies depend on the facts and should be evaluated carefully.

The combination of CPLR § 3016(j) pleading issues, New York’s 3-year SOL with no revival, FDCPA issues, and the SquareTwo bankruptcy history can create real litigation risk for a CACH plaintiff. It does not guarantee dismissal, but it gives a defendant concrete issues to preserve and test after filing an 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 may enter discovery or move toward a scheduled court event. 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 issue can be tested. You can review whether to serve a CPLR § 3120 request for assignment documents, bills of sale, the original cardholder agreement, account history, and bankruptcy court orders authorizing transfer of the account.

What happens next varies. The plaintiff may produce documents, offer settlement, move forward toward hearing, amend its materials, or dismiss. If they cannot produce a clean chain that bridges the SquareTwo bankruptcy, that can become a meaningful proof issue.

If the case does not settle or dismiss, 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.

The realistic point is simple: defendants who file Answers preserve the ability to test chain of title, CPLR § 3016(j), SOL, arbitration, and consumer-protection issues. Defendants who default usually lose those chances.

Answered is a self-help legal platform built specifically for pro se defendants in consumer debt collection lawsuits. For New York CACH cases, the workflow is built around issues such as CPLR § 3016(j), CPLR § 214-i, Palisades v. Kedik, bankruptcy chain-of-title review, and deadline preservation. It is not a law firm and does not provide individualized legal advice.

When you upload your summons and complaint, Answered helps organize key dates including your service method and estimated 20- or 30-day Answer deadline; scans for issues commonly found in CACH pleadings, including missing chain-of-title documents, CPLR § 3016(j) disclosure gaps, missing bankruptcy-era transfer authorizations, and missing post-charge-off itemization; identifies whether your debt may be time-barred under New York’s 3-year SOL; flags whether an arbitration clause may be available; and helps generate a filing-formatted Answer using the facts you confirm.

The Answer document is formatted for the appropriate New York court (Civil Court, Supreme Court, or City Court), includes the caption and case style, and can include supported affirmative defenses for you to review. Full Defense adds deeper issue-spotting and next-step materials where supported.

Pricing is simple: free to start. The Answer Packet is $60 to unlock a filing-formatted Answer, print/PDF workflow, and filing checklist. Full Defense is $99 if you need deeper case analysis, motions, discovery, counterclaims, playbooks, or case chat. There is no subscription.

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.