[brief] This case is a collection suit on a charged-off credit card account by the original creditor.  Plaintiff filed its Complaint for an amount due on the charged-off account within four (4) years after the last payment on the account on about March 22, 2018.  Defendant filed an Answer, which asserted, by checking boxes on the court form that: the amount sought by Plaintiff was incorrect, the time had passed to initiate the suit, and that Defendant was the victim of identity theft and/or mistaken identity.  Defendant further speculated that his ex-wife may have been liable for charges posted towards the account.  However, Defendant filed no third party complaint or request to join any person allegedly jointly or severally responsible.  The parties engaged in discovery.  Defendant provided no facts in response to Plaintiff’s interrogatories that the card was ever used in an unauthorized manner by any person(s).  Nor did Defendant set forth any facts identifying any defense or supporting one of his defenses as pleaded.  Rather, Defendant commented that plaintiff’s proofs should include information as to the delivery of items that may have been charged towards the account.  Plaintiff notes that it is not a delivery service or a supplier of goods or services, entertainment, information, or other fungible/non-fungible "property".  It provides credit in the form of a credit card used to purchase goods and/or services ordered from third-party purveyors by the cardholder or pursuant to the cardholder's authorization, either express or as a matter of law.  Either such determination is fact-based and fact-dependent.  Here, Defendant's discovery responses presented no fact challenging his authorization.  Upon the close of discovery, Plaintiff filed its motion for summary judgment.  Defendant filed untimely opposition.  Defendant did not raise any of the defenses asserted in the Answer or identified in his discovery responses.  Instead, Defendant raised technical arguments that Plaintiff violated the Truth in Lending Act, the Fair Credit Billing Act, and the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act.  Here again Defendant offered no independent facts to substantiate those assertions, relying exclusively on and adopting Plaintiff’s documentary proofs as true.  [...] granted Plaintiff’s Motion and entered summary judgment in its favor.  Her Honor noted that Defendant neither made a counter-statement of material facts nor responded to Plaintiff’s statement of material facts.  The failure to do so allowed the motion judge to deem those unopposed statements as admitted.  There is nothing unfair in expecting a litigant, even a pro se litigant, from adhering to the basic requirement of addressing material facts as raised by the movant as either true/untrue or admitted/denied.  This especially so after that litigant raises technical arguments predicated on complex regulatory schemes without facts and because Defendant set forth no facts in his answer, discovery responses, or certification in support of his opposition to the dispositive motion.  This Court, on review of the motion judge’s ruling that Plaintiff was entitled to entry of judgment as a matter of law, once again has the opportunity to express that such dispositive motions must be granted in the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact where the litigant, as is the Plaintiff herein, is entitled to such relief without need of trial as a matter of law.  STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY