Johnson v. Resurgent Capital Services LP

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: July 13, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-05394
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 CHRISTOPHER C. JOHNSON, CASE NO. C23-5394 BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES LP, et al., 11 Defendants. 12

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on pro se plaintiff Christopher Johnson’s 14 interim Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) motion to strike defendant Resurgent 15 Capital’s affirmative defenses, Dkt. 13, and his similar motion to strike defendant 16 Experian’s affirmative defenses, Dkt. 18. 17 The case involves Johnson’s claim that Defendants violated the Fair Debt 18 Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(f), by conducting unauthorized inquiries into his 19 credit. Dkt. 1. Resurgent’s answer, Dkt. 11, and Experian’s answer, Dkt. 15, asserted 20 affirmative defenses, presumably to preserve them under Rule 12(b). 21 22 1 Johnson asks the Court to strike these affirmative defenses, arguing that they do 2 not apply or that Defendants cannot prove them. But the latter argument is for a motion

3 for summary judgment, not a motion to strike under Rule 12(f). 4 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), a district court “may strike from a 5 pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous 6 matter.” “The function of a 12(f) motion to strike is to avoid the expenditure of time and 7 money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those issues 8 prior to trial[.]” Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010)

9 (citation and quotation omitted). Rule 12(f) motions are generally “disfavored” because 10 they are “often used as delaying tactics, and because of the limited importance of 11 pleadings in federal practice.” SCHWARZER, ET AL., FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE § 9:375 12 (citing Colaprico v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 758 F. Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D. Cal. 1991)). 13 There is nothing redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous about asserting

14 in an answer that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim, or does not have standing. There 15 is no reason to strike defendants’ “good faith error” or other affirmative defenses at this 16 stage. As always, the defendant will carry the burden of proof on these affirmative 17 defenses, just as Johnson carries the burden of proof on his claims. 18 The Motions to Strike, Dkts. 13 and 18, are DENIED.

19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 // 21 // 22 // 1 Dated this 13th day of July, 2023. A 2 3 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 4 United States District Judge

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22