Racick v. Dominion Law Associates
77 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 975, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107105, 270 F.R.D. 228 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'plausibility' pleading standard established in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, which requires a complaint to state a claim that is plausible on its face, also applies to the pleading of affirmative defenses under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Facts:
- A non-party, RAB Performance, obtained a judgment in a New York court against an individual named 'Louis Racick' (the Judgment Debtor) regarding a VISA credit card debt.
- Plaintiff Louis Racick asserts that he is not the same 'Louis Racick' who is the Judgment Debtor in the New York action.
- On June 16, 2008, Defendants Dominion Law Associates and John T. French ('Defendants') filed the foreign judgment from New York against the Plaintiff in Cumberland County, North Carolina.
- A deputy sheriff attempted to serve the judgment on Plaintiff but refrained from doing so after Plaintiff provided proof that his social security number did not match that of the Judgment Debtor.
- In February 2009, Plaintiff was unable to refinance his house and was denied credit for a truck because the wrongfully filed judgment appeared on his credit report.
- In March 2009, Plaintiff attempted to contact Defendants to resolve the error, but his calls were not returned, and he was instead sent a collection letter.
- Plaintiff then sent a certified letter to Defendant Dominion requesting they correct the error, but he received no response.
Procedural Posture:
- Louis Racick ('Plaintiff') filed a complaint against Dominion Law Associates and John T. French ('Defendants') in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
- The complaint alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
- Defendants filed an answer which included thirteen affirmative defenses.
- Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike Defendants' Affirmative Defenses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), arguing they were legally insufficient and failed to meet the plausibility standard.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 'plausibility' pleading standard established for complaints in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal also apply to the pleading of affirmative defenses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c)?
Opinions:
Majority - James C. Fox
Yes, the plausibility pleading standard from Twombly and Iqbal applies to affirmative defenses. The court reasoned that considerations of fairness, common sense, and litigation efficiency mandate that the same pleading standard apply to both complaints and affirmative defenses. Adopting the majority view among district courts, the court stated it is unfair to require a plaintiff to plead a plausible, factual basis for a claim while allowing a defendant to simply suggest that a defense might possibly apply. Applying this standard prevents 'boilerplate defenses' from cluttering the docket and creating unnecessary discovery work. The court also noted that defendants are not unduly burdened because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) allows them to seek leave to amend their answers if discovery uncovers facts that support new defenses.
Analysis:
This decision aligns with a growing majority of federal district courts that have extended the heightened Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard from complaints to affirmative defenses. It marks a significant shift away from the traditional, more lenient 'notice pleading' standard for defenses. The ruling requires defendants to conduct a more thorough factual investigation before filing an answer, preventing them from asserting a laundry list of boilerplate defenses without any factual basis. This approach is intended to streamline litigation by providing plaintiffs with fair notice of the grounds for each defense, thereby focusing discovery and potentially facilitating earlier resolution of cases.
