Discover Bank v. Plascencia

── Discover Bank v. Plascencia ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 14, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE DISCOVER BANK, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. ANGELINA PLASCENCIA, Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0807 FILED 05-14-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2025-009015 The Honorable Richard F. Albrecht, Commissioner AFFIRMED COUNSEL Angelina Plascencia, Tolleson Defendant/Appellant  DISCOVER BANK v. PLASCENCIA Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Michael S. Catlett delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Angela K. Paton and Judge Jennifer M. Perkins joined. C A T L E T T, Judge: ¶1 Angelina Plascencia (“Plascencia”) appeals the superior court’s denial of her motion to vacate a default judgment. Because Plascencia was properly served and did not respond, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 On March 12, 2025, Discover Bank filed a complaint alleging Plascencia failed to repay over ten thousand dollars owed on a credit card account. On April 2, 2025, a process server attested to serving documents on a “co-resident” who gave the name “Lucy” but “didn’t want to provide her last name.” ¶3 Plascencia did not appear in the lawsuit. On June 17, 2025, after attesting to mailing an application for entry of default to Plascencia, Discover Bank requested a default judgment without a hearing. After finding Discover Bank properly served Plascencia, who then did not appear, the court entered default judgment for Discover Bank. ¶4 Nearly a month later, Plascencia moved to vacate the judgment. Plascencia argued she was not properly served because her job sends her “out of town very often.” She stated that her stepbrother cares for her dog when she is away. She speculated that the process server may have served her stepbrother’s female visitor, but that the “paperwork” was not “given to [Plascencia].” But Plascencia admitted she found the “paperwork wedged in between [her] dog’s kennel weeks after it was delivered.” Plascencia provided her address in the caption, header, and signature line of her motion, which matched the address Discover Bank listed in the summons and application for default. ¶5 Plascencia also explained why she struggled to pay her credit card bill. She explained she made an unsuccessful attempt to settle. She included details about various hardships including reduced hours at work, difficulty paying for rent, and a negative relationship. The court denied Plascencia’s motion based on “[n]o good cause[.]” 2  DISCOVER BANK v. PLASCENCIA Decision of the Court ¶6 Plascencia timely appealed; we have jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 12-2101(2). DISCUSSION ¶7 Plascencia argues the court erred by denying her motion to vacate because Discover Bank did not properly serve the complaint and summons. She also contends the court abused its discretion by not considering her hardship arguments and denied her due process. ¶8 Discover Bank did not file an answering brief. When an appeal raises a debatable question, we “will assume that the failure to file an answering brief is a confession of reversible error on the part of the appellee.” Tiller v. Tiller, 98 Ariz. 156, 157 (1965). Although our courts have yet to establish a test to determine