Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04618/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04618-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

ORDER ON MOTION TO STRIKE

Case No. 14-CV-4618-RMW

LRM - 1 -

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DEREK BRANDON PICARD,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ABC LEGAL SERVICES, INC., a

Washington corporation, MARCOS

ANTONIO TEJADA, individually and in

his official capacity; and DOES 1 through

10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-CV-4618

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

STRIKE

[Re Docket No. 15]

Plaintiff Derek Brandon Picard filed a motion to strike defendants’ answer. Dkt. No. 15

(motion). Instead of filing an opposition, defendants filed an amended answer on the day after the 

opposition to the motion to strike would have been due. Dkt. No. 17 (amended answer). Following 

receipt of defendants’ amended answer, plaintiff filed a Statement of No Opposition Received, 

noting that the amended answer was still defective because it “continues to allege defenses which 

are not actually defenses, and continues to raise immaterial defenses.” Dkt. No. 18 (statement) 

(footnotes omitted). 

Although defendants’ answer was technically filed late and defendants should have sought 

leave of court to amend their answer, see Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), the amended 

answer cures the pleading issues in the original answer. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

Case 5:14-cv-04618-RMW Document 19 Filed 01/05/15 Page 1 of 2
ORDER ON MOTION TO STRIKE

Case No. 14-CV-4618-RMW

LRM - 2 -

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 566 U.S. 662 (2009). Although the amended answer may 

include improper negative defenses, further motion practice over the amended answer is 

unnecessary as striking the negative defenses will not preclude the defendants from arguing those 

defenses in the case. Because the answer meets the relevant pleading standards, plaintiff has fair 

notice of the relevant defenses. Accordingly, the court enters defendants’ amended answer, Dkt. 

No. 17, and denies the motion to strike as moot, Dkt. No. 15. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2015 _________________________________

Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-04618-RMW Document 19 Filed 01/05/15 Page 2 of 2