Defendant has not identified the bona fide error or innocent and unintentional mistake giving rise to this defense. Dkt. #7-1 at ¶ 50; see Nguyen v. HOVG, LLC, No. 14CV837 BTM RBB, 2014 WL 5361935, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2014) ("Because the bona fide error defense rests upon mistake, the circumstances surrounding the mistake must be stated with particularity."). Rather, defendant simply refers to "reasonable procedures [used] to verify that plaintiff owed the subject financial obligation," without specifying what procedures were maintained.Id.; see Jacobson v. Persolve, LLC, No. 14-CV-00735-LHK, 2014 WL 4090809, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014) (striking defense as "devoid of [] factual specificity" when defendant merely referred to "the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid such an error.").

See Martin v. Trott Law, P.C., 265 F.Supp.3d 731, 740 (E.D. Mich. 2017); Walters v. Performant Recovery, Inc., 124 F.Supp.3d 75, 82 (D. Conn. 2015); Arnold v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, et al., No. 14-0543, 2016 WL 375154, at *7 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 29, 2016); Nguyen v. HOVG, LLC, No. 14CV837, 2014 WL 5361935, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2014); Balon v. Enhanced Recovery Co., Inc., 316 F.R.D. 96, 103 (M.D. Pa. 2016); Wiebe v. Zakheim & Lavrar, P.A., No. 6:12-CV-1200, 2012 WL 5382181, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2012); Konewko v. Dickler, Kahn, Sloikowsi & Zavell, Ltd., No. 07 C 5338, 2008 WL 2061551, at *1 (N.D. Ill. May 14, 2008); Vanhuss v. Kohn Law Firm S.C., 127 F.Supp.3d 980, 984 (W.D. Wis. 2015); Savage v. Citibank N.A., No. 14-CV-03633, 2015 WL 4880858, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2015); Bradshaw v. Hilco Receivables, LLC, 725 F.Supp.2d 532, 537 (D. Md. 2010); Rahman v. San Diego Accounts Serv., No. 16CV2061, 2017 WL 1387206, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2017); Randolph & Tabetha Sellers v. Rushmore Loan Mgmt. Servs., LLC, No. 3:15-CV-1106, 2016 WL 11431489, at *4 (M.D. Fla. May 26, 2016); Walker v. Credit Control Servs., Inc., No. 8:15-CV-1114, 2015 WL 4571158, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 28, 2015). On the other hand, several district courts have specifically rejected the argument that a defendant is required to plead a bona fid

"Fair notice generally requires that the defendant state the nature and grounds for the affirmative defense." Nguyen v. HOVG, LLC, No. 14cv837, 2014 WL 5361935, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2014) (citation omitted). "It does not, however, require a detailed statement of facts."

"Fair notice generally requires that the defendant state the nature and grounds for the affirmative defense." Nguyen v. HOVG, LLC, No. 14cv837, 2014 WL 5361935, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2014) (quoting Roe v. City of San Diego, 289 F.R.D. 604, 608 (S.D. Cal. 2013)). "It does not, however, require a detailed statement of facts."

Indeed, at least two district courts within the Ninth Circuit have held that the FDCPA bona fide error affirmative defense is subject to Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard. See Youssofi v. Allied Interstate LLC, No. 15CV2197-GPC(JLB), 2016 WL 29625, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2016) (collecting cases from other district courts); Nguyen v. HOVG, LLC, No. 14CV837 BTM RBB, 2014 WL 5361935, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2014) (citations omitted). Consequently, Nyberg is entitled to judgment on the pleadings as to PRA's Third Affirmative Defense.

"Fair notice generally requires that the defendant state the nature and grounds for the affirmative defense." Nguyen v. HOVG, LLC, No. 14cv837, 2014 WL 5361935, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2014) (quoting Roe v. City of San Diego, 289 F.R.D. 604, 608 (S.D. Cal. 2013). "It does not, however, require a detailed statement of facts." Id.

District courts have held that the affirmative defense of bona fide error must be stated with particularity under Rule 9(b). See Walters v. Performant Recovery, Inc., -F. Supp. 3d -, 2015 WL 4999796, at *4 (D. Conn. Aug. 21, 2015) (bona fide error defense "is subject to a heightened pleading standard, regardless of whether Iqbal or Twombly generally apply to affirmative defenses"); Nguyen v. HOVG, LLC, No. 14CV837 BTM RBB, 2014 WL 5361935, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2014) (granting Plaintiff's motion to strike affirmative defense of "bona fide error" since Defendant did not state any facts regarding the mistake that was made and mistake must be stated with particularity); Jacobson v. Persolve, LLC, 14cv735-LHK, 2014 WL 4090809, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014) (citing merely to legal standard for bona fide error is not sufficient to assert affirmative defense); Wiebe v. Zakheim & Lavrar, P.A., No. 6:12-cv-1200-ORL-18TBS, 2012 WL 5382181, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2012) ("A claim of bona fide error is tantamount to a claim of mistake and therefore, the Defendant must plead this defense with the particularity required by Rule 9(b)."); Bradshaw v. Hilco Receivables, LLC, 725 F. Supp. 2d 532, 537 (D. Md. July 27, 2010) (striking "bona fide error" defense of merely copying language of § 1692k(c) and failing to plead facts that give the plaintiff sufficient notice of the specific mistake); Konewko v. Dickler, Kahn, Sloikowsi & Zavell, Ltd., No. 07-C-5338, 2008

As an initial matter, Plaintiff correctly points out that “[b]ecause the bona fide error defense rests upon mistake, the circumstances surrounding the mistake must be stated with particularity.” Nguyen v. HOVG, LLC, No. 14–cv–837 (BTM) (RBB), 2014 WL 5361935, at *2 (S.D.Cal. Oct. 20, 2014) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b)); Wiebe v. Zakheim & Lavrar, P.A., No. 6:12–cv–1200–ORL–18TBS, 2012 WL 5382181, at *2 (M.D.Fla. Nov. 1, 2012) (“A claim of bona fide error is tantamount to a claim of mistake and therefore, the Defendant must plead this defense with the particularity required by Rule 9(b).”);