Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00215/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00215-0/pdf.json

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

---

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 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Pamela Bledsoe, on behalf of herself and all 

others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Central Credit Holdings, Inc.; Central 

Credit Services, Inc.; and James J. 

Eccleston, in his individual capacity, 

Defendants.

No. CV-11-215-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff has filed a 

motion to strike the affirmative defenses asserted by Defendants in their amended 

answer. Doc. 21. The motion is fully briefed. Docs. 24, 35. No party has requested oral 

argument. For reasons stated below, the motion will be denied. 

 The affirmative defenses (Doc. 16 at 14-16) are insufficient, Plaintiff argues, 

because they are without factual basis or a showing of plausibility as required by Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Doc. 21 at 4. Recognizing that 

Twombly addressed only the sufficiency of a complaint under Rule 8(a), Plaintiff argues 

that the Twombly pleading standard should apply equally to affirmative defenses. Id. 

The Court previously has rejected this argument, concluding that any extension of 

Twombly should be left to the Supreme Court or this Circuit. See Ameristar Fence 

Prods., Inc. v. Phoenix Fence Co., No. CV-10-299-PHX-DGC, 2010 WL 2803907, at *1 

(D. Ariz. July 15, 2010). 

Case 2:11-cv-00215-DGC Document 37 Filed 05/26/11 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

 The pleading of affirmative defenses is governed by Rule 8(c)(1). That rule 

requires the responding party to “state” any affirmative defense, and lists, in bullet-point 

fashion, certain specific defenses covered by the rule. Significantly, the language in Rule 

8(a) requiring a short and plain statement of the claim “showing” the pleader is entitled to 

relief is found nowhere in Rule 8(c)(1). See J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Khachatrian, No. 

CV-10-1567-GMS-PHX, 2011 WL 720049, at *1 n.1 (D. Ariz. Feb. 23 2011); see also

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(1)(A). The Court continues in its view that the pleading standards 

enunciated in Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), have no application 

to affirmative defenses pled under Rule 8(c)(1). See Ameristar, 2010 WL 2803907, at *1. 

“Application of Twombly and Iqbal to affirmative defenses would significantly change 

federal civil practice and likely increase the burden on federal courts.” Schlief v. 

Nu-Source, Inc., No. 10-4477 (DWF/SER), 2011 WL 1560672, at *9 (D. Minn. Apr. 25, 

2011); see also Falley v. Friends Univ., No. 10-1423-CM, 2011 WL 1429956, at *4 (D. 

Kan. Apr. 14 2011). 

 “The decision to grant or deny a motion to strike is committed to the discretion of 

the Court.” Wine Group LLC v. L. & R. Wine Co., No. 2:10-cv-02204-MCE-KJN, 2011 

WL 1233132, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2011). Motions to strike under Rule 12(f) are, 

however, “disfavored and infrequently granted.” Bassett v. Ruggles, No. CV-F-09-528 

OWW/SMS, 2009 WL 2982895, at *24 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2009). The Court cannot 

conclude, particularly given Plaintiff’s class action allegations, that the affirmative 

defenses asserted by Defendants are insufficient as a matter of law. The Court will 

exercise its discretion and deny the motion to strike. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s amended motion to strike (Doc. 21) is denied. 

 Dated this 26th day of May, 2011. 

Case 2:11-cv-00215-DGC Document 37 Filed 05/26/11 Page 2 of 2