The new attorney put wage garnish on me. I got a show cause hearing.

So, the attorney sent out a wage garnishment, and you contested it for some reason? Why? And, you obtained a "show cause" hearing? Why? This still isn't making sense - if they obtained the judgment, then they have every right to collect on it. And, I'm having trouble seeing why a court would dismiss the entire lawsuit over a garnishment hearing.

Yes they have the right to try to collect it and have the right to fight it. Default judgement does not mean they proved their case, only that I did not show up to present my case. I looked up my rights and found that I was never properly served. That allowed me to file a show cause hearing. I then served plaintiffs attorney to prove that I was served properly. They in turn were a no show in court. Garnishment is what made me aware of the actual judgement , remember I was never servered. I was ready to prove my point and I guess they just hoped I never be able to find out my rights to challenge their claim. Sounds too basic for you but that's what it is. All I did was check sites on web and found out my rights and put them on the defense.

No, not too basic - your original post says nothing about not being properly served in the first place. Frankly, I think the company was a no-show because they didn't want to spend the money to send someone to fight about it (and, they may have also realized that your original service may not have been proper). So, if the case was dismissed, and the SOL has expired, then I'd say they cannot sue you again without explaining to a judge why they think the SOL shouldn't have expired the lawsuit.