*2 Before K ANNE R OVNER and S YKES Circuit Judges . P ER C URIAM . DT C Global Management operated ground transportation company Chicago. company and two owners were sued by former employees and the government for violating state and federal wage payment laws. After the defendants ignored orders, the district judges entered judgments for plaintiffs. Eleven later, defendants both judg ments. F ED . R. C IV . P. 60(b). Deeming their excuses too lit tle, too late, judges denied motions, precipitating appeal. Because did not cause for default, did act quickly filing motions vacate, failed articulate any meritorious defenses, we conclude abuse discretion. We affirm judgments.

I. B ACKGROUND

This appeal consolidates two lawsuits. In first, drivers sued former employer, DT Global Management, LLC, John Jansen, an owner, for wage payment viola tions. second, Secretary Labor sued company, Jansen, William Lynch, another owner, for same vio lations. Employees’ Case

Mark Krantz William Dunne, former drivers company, alleged pay over time rates, violation Fair Labor Standards Act, U.S.C. § Illinois Minimum Wage Act, ILCS 105/1. plaintiffs contended took un authorized wage deductions violation Illinois’s Wage Payment Collection Act, ILCS 115/9. *3 case proceeded to discovery, ended with a default When the didn’t discovery

requests, the plaintiffs filed a compel, which the judge granted. About a year later, in late the plaintiffs moved for sanctions because had not com plied with discovery order. After defendants’ counsel responded couldn’t reach defendants, judge allowed counsel withdraw. Because company could represent itself without counsel, judge ordered appear for a hearing. When didn’t up, judge entered sanctions: he struck defendants’ answer, awarded plaintiffs attorneys’ fees, entered a default. plaintiffs then moved for default judgment, which judge granted in November

Eleven months later, moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). Jan sen offered excuses. He first asserted he received no notices during last few case. He said he didn’t get notice counsel’s withdraw or judge’s order directing him appear because his company closed business in September no longer received mail office address. get any mail sent his home or e mail addresses, he thinks, because he Indiana his emails were “forwarded another company.” As result, he unaware judg ment against him until “summer 2016.” Second he said he could keep contact his lawyers because his poor health. He explained surgeries ongoing medication, hospitalization April “unspeci fied neurological issues” created “difficulty attending busi ness affairs.” He acknowledged, however, summer met Attorney James E. several times *4 & Chicago. After hiring Gorman, Jansen had no further con ‐ tact Gorman’s office until around “late March, early April” learned had died.

The judge denied motion. He ruled the default was result of “inattention litigation” rather than ill ‐ ness, defendants shown they legit ‐ imate defense.

The Department Labor Case Secretary Labor alleged same Fair Labor Stand ards Act violations suit against DT C, Jansen, William Lynch (minority owner president DT C).

Discovery disputes arose here, too. Secretary moved compel discovery requests. De fendants’ counsel—the same as employees’ case— moved withdraw, again citing an inability reach defend ants. following month Secretary asked en ter default failure defend. When re spond, judge entered default default judgment.

As employees’ case, eleven passed This almost identical other one, adds points. First, Lynch swore relied on keep him ap prised case. Second, Lynch admitted seeing press release Department Labor announcing January They both thought after reading weren’t individually liable, they *5 5 16 4076 16 4077 weren’t worried about company’s judgment because closed business. judge denied vacate. She explained Jansen’s surgeries, which occurred litigation started, did excuse default or Jansen’s failure learn about default She found show a meritorious defense.

II. A NALYSIS On appeal, argue abused discretion by denying motions vacate. They repeat because receive notice of judgments suffered bad health, neglect cases is excusable. See F ED . R. IV . P. 60(b)(1). For a set aside a under Rule 60(b)(1), movant must cause, quick action default, a meritorious defense underlying allegations. See Wehrs v. Wells , (7th Cir. 2012). most cases, party is bound actions attorney even those actions are errors or omissions. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co. U.S. (1962), Moje Fed. Hockey League, LLC 2015). We review denial Rule 60(b) abuse discretion. See Cent. Ill. Carpenters Health Welfare Tr. Fund Con Tech Carpentry, LLC F3.d 2015).

*6 4077

The district judges reasonably concluded that defend ‐ ants establish good cause for default. defend ‐ ants first point Jansen’s health problems, but was within district judges’ discretion reject this excuse given timeline and lack corroborating information. Jansen’s sur ‐ geries were in 2014, yet he remained inattentive cases for all 2015, well after these surgeries. Jansen re ‐ plies he remained on various medications, but he offers no medical opinion suggesting impaired his ability handle his affairs. To contrary, Jansen said he was able conduct business he wanted. He met with Gor ‐ man Chicago many times summer 2015, during same time he was ignoring courts’ discovery or ders. with second excuse: Jan

sen’s move Indiana 2015, combined with problems mail email forwarding, cause losing contact his lawyers court, resulting de fault. reasonably found excuse defi cient. When Jansen away closed business, he should have notified his new address. See Soliman Johanns F.3d 920, 2005); Carey King 1988). This step was especially im portant because Jansen was considering hiring Gorman re place his original attorneys whom he apparently had breakdown communication. may have later let down by doing anything defend suit, duty, which he ignored, check see if his lawyer doing something represent him. Moje If simply looked at docket or called his lawyer once after fall would have learned his *7 ‐ ‐ former lawyers withdrawn, that didn’t even en ter appearance in case, that Jansen needed act promptly. id. And even those simple steps would have been unnecessary if merely notified court his new address in summer 2015. also reasonably decided de

fendants not quickly after learning about de fault argue they waited only “two, three months” between when learned de fault judgment in “summer 2016” when they filed Rule 60(b) October. (Appellants’ Br. App. A 12, A 27.) They also point Jansen’s undocumented hospitaliza tion “unspecified neurological issues” April defendants’ account does not reflect quick action. First, they don’t explain how Jansen’s hospital stay April disabled him from filing vacate until six months later, October. Second, defendants’ “two, three months” delay after “summer 2016” was quick. Jones Phipps this decided an appellant quick ac tion she vacate five weeks after she knew about judgment was capable getting help lawyer. 1994); see C.K.S. Eng’rs Inc. White Mountain Gypsum Co. 1984) (stating movant’s two month delay moving was quick action). Finally, three calculate ignores January press release both Lynch read shortly after published. Despite reading notice, take easy prudent step checking link *8 article see if judgment applied to them. Instead they let more than nine pass going court.

Defendants proffer meritorious defense complaint. defense doesn’t need be clearly victo ‐ rious argument, must contain more than “bare legal conclusions.” Parker Scheck Mech. Corp. 2014). Yet is all that defendants offered. vacate, said has “defenses faith amounts awarded are ex cessive has received all credits he other de fendants should have respect amount.” (R. 5.) don’t elaborate on these defenses, nor do provide any support them. Although some courts will look other pleadings flesh out possible de fense, circuit district courts may reasonably demand defenses be included developed vacate. Jones Phipps 1994) (re marking district abuse discretion con cluding defense “unsatisfactory” explanation mer itless). But provide anything else, thereby dooming motion.

III. ONCLUSION For foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM courts’ grants Appellees’ motions dismiss.

[1] press release contains hyperlink judgment, which named Lynch as individual defendants. U.S. Dep’t Labor, Fed eral judge orders Chicago limo company pay more than $381K back wages damages (2016), https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/re leases/whd/whd20160121.)