Gandeza v. The Brachfeld Law Group, a Professional Corporation et al

Filing 25

Order by Hon. Samuel Conti granting 16 Motion to Strike.(sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

9
10

CHRISTOPHER ERIC GANDEZA,
Plaintiff,

11
v.

12
13

THE BRACHFELD LAW GROUP and
ERICA LYNN BRACHFELD,

14

Defendants.

15
16

) Case No. C 13-0818 SC
)
) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

17
18
19
20

I.

INTRODUCTION
This matter arises from a dispute under the Fair Debt

21

Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., and

22

California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

23

("Rosenthal Act"), Cal. Civ. Code § 1788 et seq.

24

Court is Plaintiff Christopher Eric Gandeza's ("Plaintiff") motion

25

to strike Defendants Brachfeld Law Group and Erica Lynn Brachfeld's

26

affirmative defenses.

27

is fully briefed, ECF No. 18 ("Opp'n"), 19 ("Reply"), and suitable

28

for decision without oral argument per Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

Now before the

ECF Nos. 8 ("Ans."), 16 ("MTS").

The matter

1 II.

BACKGROUND

2

The factual background of this case is unimportant for the

3

present order.

4

procedural summary.

5

The Court therefore provides only a short

On February 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed his Complaint, alleging

6

causes of action stemming from the FDCPA and the Rosenthal Act.

7

ECF No. 1 ("Compl.").

8

29, 2013 and asserted nine affirmative defenses to Plaintiff's

9

claims.

Defendants answered the Complaint on March

Ans. ¶¶ 48-56.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff moved to strike those defenses on April 19, 2013.

11

According to Defendants' papers (and not disputed by Plaintiff),

12

Defendants responded to Plaintiff's motion first by sending

13

Plaintiff an email stating that Defendants would file an Amended

14

Answer.

15

Answer, which contained only two affirmative defenses, but

16

Plaintiff did not withdraw his motion to strike or stipulate to the

17

filing of an Amended Answer.

18

their opposition to Plaintiff's motion, in which they agree to

19

withdraw all of their affirmative defenses except the failure to

20

mitigate and bona fide error defenses.

21

Plaintiff is on notice of what affirmative defenses will be

22

litigated in the case, and since Defendants bear the burden on the

23

two remaining defenses at litigation, Plaintiff's attempt to strike

24

these two defenses is improper.

25

for leave to amend the Answer.

26

the two remaining affirmative defenses are improperly pled but does

27

not appear to contest Defendants' request that the Court grant

28

leave to amend the Answer as justice requires.

Opp'n at 2.

They gave Plaintiff a draft of this Amended

Id.

Defendants accordingly filed

Id.

Id.

Alternatively, Defendants ask

Id. at 2-3.

2

They argue that since

Plaintiff insists that

See Reply at 2-6.

1
2 III.

LEGAL STANDARD

3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) provides that a court

4

may, on its own or on a motion, "strike from a pleading an

5

insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or

6

scandalous matter."

7

. . . [and] are generally not granted unless it is clear that the

8

matter sought to be stricken could have no possible bearing on the

9

subject matter of the litigation."

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

Motions to strike "are generally disfavored

Rosales v. Citibank, 133 F.

Supp. 2d 1177, 1180 (N.D. Cal. 2001).

11
12 IV.

DISCUSSION

13

Plaintiff argues that Defendants' affirmative defenses are

14

improperly pled.

15

must meet the plausibility standards of Twombly and Iqbal.

16

at 2-4 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007),

17

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 566 U.S. 662 (2009)).

18

According to Plaintiff, an affirmative defense
See MTS

Defendants concede that seven of their nine affirmative

19

defenses are deficient.

20

defenses.

21

defenses, Defendants argue that a failure to plead facts is

22

irrelevant, since Plaintiff is on notice of the defenses to be

23

litigated and could therefore obtain sufficient facts at discovery.

24

See Opp'n at 4-6.

25

Opp'n at 2.

They therefore waive those

As to their bona fide mistake and failure to mitigate

The Court finds that Defendants have failed to plead plausible

26

facts supporting any of their Answer's affirmative defenses.

27

Ans. ¶¶ 48-56.

28

is insufficient for affirmative defenses pled in answers.

See

As the Court has held previously, notice pleading

3

Dion v.

1

Fulton Friedman & Gullace LLP, No. 11-2727 SC, 2012 WL 160221, at

2

*2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2012) (citing Barnes v. AT&T Pension Benefit

3

Plan, 718 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1171-72 (N.D. Cal. 2011)).

4

defenses, like complaints, must be supported with facts rendering

5

the defense plausible under Twombly and Iqbal.

6

enough that a plaintiff knows what legal defense will be argued:

7

the plaintiff must also know the factual bases of the defense.

See id.

It is not

Defendants have leave to amend their Answer to plead the two

United States District Court

10
For the Northern District of California

Id.

The Court therefore strikes Defendants' affirmative defenses.

8
9

Affirmative

affirmative defenses discussed in this Order and their briefing.

11

Defendants must plead facts supporting those two defenses.

12

Court finds that such a narrow amendment will not prejudice

13

Plaintiff.

The

14
15
16

V.

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff Christopher Eric Gandeza's motion to strike

17

Defendants Brachfeld Law Group and Erica Lynn Brachfeld's

18

affirmative defenses is GRANTED.

19

amended answer, as discussed above.

20

(15) days of this Order's signature date.

Defendants have leave to file an
They must do so within fifteen

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: June 27, 2013

25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28

4