Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01584/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01584-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

*E-FILED 6/28/07*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

VICTORIA SAEEDI, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

M.R.S. ASSOCIATES, INC,

Defendant. /

NO. C 07-01584 (RS)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

STRIKE OR FOR MORE

DEFINITIVE STATEMENT

In this action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C §§ 1692, et seq.,

defendant M.R.S. Associates, Inc. has averred as an affirmative defense that its alleged acts and

omissions were the result of an “innocent mistake or bona fide error.” See 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c)

(limiting recoverable damages if “the debt collector shows by a preponderance of evidence that the

violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of

procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.”). Plaintiff Victoria Saeedi moves under

Rule 12 (e) and (f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) to strike that affirmative

defense or for a more definite statement on the grounds that M.R.S. purportedly has failed to plead

in sufficient detail the “facts” underlying its claim of “mistake.” Saeedi contends that because FRCP

9 requires averments of “fraud or mistake” to be stated with “particularity,” she is entitled to

challenge the adequacy of defendant’s defense at the pleading stage. The Court finds this matter

suitable for disposition without oral argument, pursuant to Local Rule 7-1 (b). 

The requirement of Rule 9 to state fraud with particularity protects a defendant (or crossCase 5:07-cv-01584-RS Document 21 Filed 06/28/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE AND FOR MORE DEFINITIVE STATEMENT

C 07-01584 (RS)

2

defendant) from “fishing expeditions” based on conclusory allegations of fraud (or mistake). As

Saeedi notes, the goal is “to discourage the filing of complaints with vague conclusions ‘as a pretext

for discovery of unknown wrongs.’” Motion at 3:8-9, citing Madonna v. United States, 878 F.2d

62, 66 (2d Cir. 1989). Saeedi asserts that ,“[t]his reasoning applies with equal weight to Defendant’s

conclusory affirmative defense.” Motion at 3:9-10. Not so. A party hauled into court arguably

should not be exposed to discovery based on the opposing party’s unsubstantiated allegations that

the party engaged in fraud or committed a mistake. Here, in contrast, M.R.S. is not alleging that

Saeedi committed a fraud or was mistaken, but that M.R.S. may have acted (or failed to act) through

a good faith error. M.R.S. is not using vague or conclusory allegations as a license to conduct

discovery into Saeedi’s affairs, rather M.R.S. has only exposed itself to further inquiry into what

constituted the alleged “bona fide error.” No rule or policy weighs against requiring Saeedi to use

the discovery process to explore what, if any, factual and evidentiary basis M.R.S. may have to

support that averment.

Saeedi reasonably could bring a motion to compel in the event responses by M.R.S to such

discovery prove to be deficient, or perhaps a motion for summary judgment in the event discovery

reveals that no facts exist to support the defense, but attempting to dispose of it at the pleading stage

serves no salutary purpose, particularly when Saeedi acknowledges that leave to amend would be

required in any event. The pleading is more than sufficient to give Saeedi fair notice of the defense

and does not give rise to the potential prejudice that FRCP 9 is designed to prevent. Accordingly,

the motion is denied.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2007 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:07-cv-01584-RS Document 21 Filed 06/28/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE AND FOR MORE DEFINITIVE STATEMENT

C 07-01584 (RS)

3

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

Abraham Joshua Colman acolman@reedsmith.com, fyu@reedsmith.com,

vlam@reedsmith.com

Scott H. Jacobs shjacobs@reedsmith.com, dmartin@reedsmith.com

Christopher Orlando Rivas crivas@reedsmith.com

Frederick William Schwinn cand_cmecf@sjconsumerlaw.com,

fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com, fschwinn@gmail.com

Jordan Seungjin Yu jsyu@reedsmith.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 6/28/07 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:07-cv-01584-RS Document 21 Filed 06/28/07 Page 3 of 3