Dawson v. Genesis Credit Management, LLC

Filing 15

ORDER granting plaintiff's 11 Motion to strike; defendant's affirmative defenses are stricken signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour.(RS)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

MAURICEO DAWSON,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. C17-0638-JCC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STRIKE

GENESIS CREDIT MANAGEMENT,
LLC,

13
14

Defendant.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Mauriceo Dawson’s motion to strike
Defendant Genesis Credit Management’s affirmative defenses (Dkt. No. 11). Having thoroughly
considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument
unnecessary and hereby GRANTS the motion for the reasons explained herein.
Plaintiff alleges he was subject to unlawful debt-collection efforts by Defendant, (Dkt.
No. 1-1), and moves to strike all of Defendant’s affirmative defenses, (Dkt. No. 11). The Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “[t]he court may strike from a pleading an insufficient
defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). To determine whether a defense is “insufficient,” the Court asks
whether it gives the plaintiff fair notice of the defense. Simmons v. Navajo County, 609 F.3d
1011, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Wyshak v. City Nat’l Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 827 (9th Cir.
1979)). “The function of a 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the expenditure of time and money

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
STRIKE
PAGE - 1

1

that must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues prior to trial.”

2

Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993) (quotation marks and indications

3

of alteration omitted), overruled on other grounds, Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517

4

(1994). “In the absence of prejudice to the opposing party, leave to amend should be freely

5

given.” Wyshak, 607 F.2d at 826 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)).

6

Here, Defendant’s conclusory and vague affirmative defenses fail to give Plaintiff fair

7

notice. For example, the statute of limitations defense, in its entirety, states, “Some or all of

8

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations.” (Dkt. No. 10 at 5.) The equitable

9

defenses suffer from the same error; Defendant merely asserts a list of potential defenses,

10

nothing else. (Id. at 6.) The only defense which contains any detail is the bona fide error defense.

11

(Id.) However, Defendant fails to identify the bona fide error itself, thereby depriving Plaintiff of

12

fair notice. Using affirmative defenses as “placeholders” without any factual support or

13

specificity is inappropriate. Therefore, the Court concludes that all of Defendant’s affirmative

14

defenses are insufficient and must be stricken.

15

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to strike (Dkt. No. 11) is GRANTED and

16

Defendant’s affirmative defenses are STRICKEN. The Court concludes leave to amend would

17

not prejudice Plaintiff. Defendant may amend its affirmative defenses within 14 days from the

18

date of this order. Any amended affirmative defenses must give Plaintiff fair notice, i.e., specify

19

which defenses apply to which claims, cite relevant statutes, and enumerate relevant facts.

20

DATED this 26th day of June 2017.

A

21
22
23

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
STRIKE
PAGE - 2