Opinion
Case No. 12-CV-06113-SC
03-22-2013
GUY JAKUB, on behalf of himself, the general public, and those similarly situated Plaintiff, v. A.R.M. SOLUTIONS, INC., BRAD JADWIN, JAMES MONTGOMERY, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Plaintiff Guy Jakub ("Plaintiff") brings this putative class action against Defendants A.R.M. Solutions, Inc., Brad Jadwin, and James Montgomery (collectively, "Defendants") for, inter alia, violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. ECF No. 1 ("Compl."). Defendants have filed an answer, asserting eleven affirmative defenses. ECF No. 3 ("Answer"). Plaintiff now moves to strike each of these affirmative defenses. ECF No. 8 ("Mot."). Defendants do not contest the motion, but ask for leave to amend with respect to their fifth and ninth affirmative defenses. ECF No. 9 ("Opp'n") at 2. Plaintiff argues that the Court should deny Defendants leave to amend their ninth affirmative defense for "reliance on the creditor" because it is duplicative of their fifth affirmative defense for "bona fide error." ECF No. 10 ("Reply") at 2-3. In light of the paucity of facts pled in the Answer, the Court is unable to determine whether the two defenses are duplicative. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendants' affirmative defenses and GRANTS Defendants leave to amend their fifth and ninth affirmative defenses. Defendants shall amend these defenses within thirty (30) days of the signature date of this Order or they may be dismissed with prejudice.
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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE