James v. Puget Sound Collections

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA KYLE JAMES, CASE NO. 22-5237 RJB Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 12 v. STRIKE 13 PUGET SOUND COLLECTIONS, and STATE COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff’s “Motion to Strike the Affirmative Defenses in Puget Sound Collections” (Dkt. 21). The Court has considered the pleadings filed regarding the motion and the remaining file.

The Plaintiff, pro se, filed this case on April 6, 2022 asserting claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et. seq., (“FDCPA”), after he alleges that he was “assigned 100 percent of these claims by Helen Woodke.” Dkt. 1. On May 19, 2022, Puget Sound Collections (“PSC”) filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses. Dkt. 14. On May 26, 2022, the Plaintiff filed his motion to strike PSC’s affirmative defenses, contending that the defenses are “insufficiently pled, frivolous, vague, conclusory and without factual basis.” Dkt.

2 that Amended Answer, PCS asserts the following affirmative defenses: 3 32. Plaintiff fails to state factual matter sufficient to constitute a claim against PSC that is plausible on its face. Among other things, plaintiff did not suffer any 4 harm, and PSC’s alleged conduct does not violate the FDCPA.

5 33. Plaintiff lacks standing because plaintiff did not suffer any concrete harm.

Any concrete harm suffered (which PSC denies) would have been suffered by 6 non-party Helen Woodke.

7 34. Plaintiff is not the real party in interest; non-party Helen Woodke is.

8 35. The alleged assignment of claims to plaintiff was void and ineffective. See Kommavongsa v. Haskell, 149 Wn. 2d 288 (2003).

36. The alleged misrepresentations and/or misconduct (if any) are not material 10 and, therefore, are not actionable under the FDCPA. See Donahue v. Quick Collect, Inc., 592 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2010).

37. Any alleged violation of the FDCPA was technical, non-material and/or de 12 minimis in nature and, therefore, does not support a finding of liability or an award of damages or attorney’s fees.

38. To the extent plaintiff is able to prove a violation of the FDCPA, any such 14 violation was unintentional, and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid such error. Based on 15 PSC’s present understanding of plaintiff’s allegations, those procedures include (but are not limited to) reporting accurate information to consumer reporting 16 agencies and obtaining and relying on information from PSC’s creditors.

17 39. Any violation and/or damages resulted from the fault of plaintiff or of others (including non-party Helen Woodke and/or consumer reporting agencies) for 18 whom PSC is not responsible or liable.

19 40. Any damages were aggravated by plaintiff’s own failure to use reasonable diligence to mitigate such damages and, thus, plaintiff is barred from recovering 20 any damages from PSC..

21 Dkt. 25.

22 Motions to Strike. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) permits the court to “strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” “The function of a 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 3 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993)). “The key to determining the sufficiency of pleading an affirmative defense is whether it gives plaintiff fair notice of the defense.” Wyshak v. City Nat.

5 Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 827 (9th Cir. 1979); see Kohler v. Flava Enter., Inc., 779 F.3d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 2015).

7 The Plaintiff’s motion to strike (Dkt. 21) should be denied. The Plaintiff has failed to show that, as amended, PSC’s affirmative defenses are “insufficient,” “redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous.” Rule 12(f). PSC has given the Plaintiff fair notice of the defenses that will be asserted. Wyshak at 827.

11 Moreover, as stated in a prior order denying the Plaintiff’s motion to strike the affirmative defenses of Defendant State Collection Service, Inc., the Plaintiff fails to point to binding authority that the plausibility standard announced in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly 550 14 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) applies to affirmative defenses in the Ninth Circuit. Even assuming that it does, PSC alleges sufficient facts which plausibly support the affirmative defenses it asserts. Plaintiff’s “Motion to Strike the Affirmative Defenses in Puget Sound Collections” (Dkt. 21) should be denied.

18 IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

21 Dated this 13th day of June, 2022.

22 A ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge