A Delaware court has denied a motion from Jeff D'Ambrosio Imports, Inc. to vacate a default judgment in a case involving a check-cashing dispute. The ruling means that Delborrello Financial Services DE LLC, which operates under the name United Check Cashing, will retain the judgment awarded to it after D'Ambrosio failed to respond to the initial complaint. This decision impacts the operations of D'Ambrosio and highlights the importance of timely legal responses in business transactions.
The case, filed under docket number N26C-03-323 MAA, stems from a transaction that took place on January 28, 2026, when a customer, Tylier Jabree Hawkes Smallwood, negotiated the purchase of a vehicle from D'Ambrosio's dealership for $47,500. D'Ambrosio issued a check to Smallwood, who then presented it to Delborrello for cashing. Delborrello verified the check with D'Ambrosio before cashing it. However, after D'Ambrosio reported irregularities regarding the vehicle's ownership, it stopped payment on the check, prompting Delborrello to sue for the funds it had already provided to Smallwood.
The dispute escalated when Delborrello filed a complaint on March 16, 2026, asserting claims of breach of drawer's obligation, promissory estoppel, and negligence against D'Ambrosio. D'Ambrosio was served with the complaint on March 31, 2026, but failed to respond by the April 20 deadline. On May 6, Delborrello obtained a default judgment, which D'Ambrosio only learned about on June 2, 2026. D'Ambrosio filed a motion to vacate the judgment on June 23, arguing that it had demonstrated excusable neglect and that it could present a meritorious defense.
The court, presided over by Commissioner Martin B. O’Connor, ruled against D'Ambrosio's motion, stating that the company did not demonstrate excusable neglect. The court emphasized that while Delaware courts favor allowing parties their day in court, D'Ambrosio's failure to follow up with its insurance carrier regarding the coverage determination was unreasonable. The court noted, "Defendant's conduct in failing to follow up with its insurer was unreasonable," and that this neglect did not meet the standard of being excusable.
In its ruling, the court referenced Delaware's Superior Court Civil Rule 60(b), which allows for relief from a judgment under certain circumstances. The court explained that to vacate a default judgment, a party must show excusable neglect, a potential meritorious defense, and that the opposing party would not suffer substantial prejudice. D'Ambrosio's reliance on its insurance carrier's delay was insufficient to justify its lack of response to the complaint.
The court concluded that D'Ambrosio's failure to follow up with its insurer over a two-month period constituted inexcusable neglect. The ruling means that Delborrello will keep the default judgment, which allows it to recover the funds it paid to Smallwood. The court did not need to address whether D'Ambrosio had a valid defense or whether Delborrello would suffer prejudice from vacating the judgment.
This ruling underscores the importance of timely legal responses, particularly in business transactions where financial obligations are at stake. It serves as a reminder for businesses to maintain communication with their legal representatives and insurance carriers to avoid similar situations in the future.
As for what happens next, D'Ambrosio may consider appealing the court's decision, but details about any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the opinion.