Jakub v. A.R.M. Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 14

Order by Hon. Samuel Conti granting 8 Motion to Strike.(sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

GUY JAKUB, on behalf of himself,
the general public, and those
similarly situated

12

Plaintiff,

13
v.
14
15

A.R.M. SOLUTIONS, INC., BRAD
JADWIN, JAMES MONTGOMERY,

16
Defendant.
17

) Case No. 12-CV-06113-SC
)
) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
) STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

18
19

Plaintiff Guy Jakub ("Plaintiff") brings this putative class

20

action against Defendants A.R.M. Solutions, Inc., Brad Jadwin, and

21

James Montgomery (collectively, "Defendants") for, inter alia,

22

violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.

23

1692 et seq.

24

answer, asserting eleven affirmative defenses.

25

("Answer").

26

affirmative defenses.

27

contest the motion, but ask for leave to amend with respect to

28

their fifth and ninth affirmative defenses.

ECF No. 1 ("Compl.").

Defendants have filed an
ECF No. 3

Plaintiff now moves to strike each of these
ECF No. 8 ("Mot.").

Defendants do not

ECF No. 9 ("Opp'n") at

1

2.

Plaintiff argues that the Court should deny Defendants leave to

2

amend their ninth affirmative defense for "reliance on the

3

creditor" because it is duplicative of their fifth affirmative

4

defense for "bona fide error."

5

light of the paucity of facts pled in the Answer, the Court is

6

unable to determine whether the two defenses are duplicative.

7

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to strike

8

Defendants' affirmative defenses and GRANTS Defendants leave to

9

amend their fifth and ninth affirmative defenses.1

ECF No. 10 ("Reply") at 2-3.

In

Defendants

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

shall amend these defenses within thirty (30) days of the signature

11

date of this Order or they may be dismissed with prejudice.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated:

16

March 22, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court directs the parties to its recent Order in Dion v.
Fulton Friedman & Gullace LLP, 11-2727 SC, 2012 WL 160221, 2012
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5116 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2012), for guidance on
the standards for pleading affirmative defenses.
2