The article is extremely unclear. It can clearly read the way you thought it did, or it can be read as a default judgement vs. a defendant who didn’t respond at

The article is extremely unclear. It can clearly read the way you thought it did, or it can be read as a default judgement vs. a defendant who didn’t respond at all. I think the key point, and one in your favor, is the judges comments. Why would he even elaborate on the reason for his ruling if it’s a default judgment?