Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01026/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01026-1/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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE—No. C-07-01026 RMW 

MAG

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 6/7/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

KINH TONG,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES

GROUP, INC., f/k/a CAPITAL

MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

No. C-07-01026 RMW

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

TO STRIKE SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE

[Re Docket No. 12]

Plaintiff Kinh Tong moves to strike defendant's sixth affirmative defense and for a more

definite statement. Plaintiff's claims arise under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"),

15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.. The affirmative defense at issue is a bona fide error defense based on 15

U.S.C. § 1692k. Plaintiff contends that the bona fide error defense must be pleaded with

particularity under Federal Rule of Procedure 9, which provides, "In all averments of fraud or

mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity." FED. R.

CIV. P. 9(b). Plaintiff asks the court to strike the defense as pleaded, and to permit the defendant to

replead it with more particularity. 

The bona fide error defense permits the defendant to prove, if possible, that any actions that

resulted in violation of the FDCPA stemmed from a variety of mistake permitted under the statute. 

Case 5:07-cv-01026-RMW Document 23 Filed 06/07/07 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 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE—No. C-07-01026 RMW 

MAG 2

The court finds that defendants have pleaded the defense with sufficient detail to permit plaintiff to

take discovery on the asserted defense. No enhanced pleading is necessary. Accordingly, the court

denies plaintiff's motion to strike. 

DATED: 6/6/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-01026-RMW Document 23 Filed 06/07/07 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 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE—No. C-07-01026 RMW 

MAG 3

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Frederick William Schwinn fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com

Counsel for Defendants:

Corinne de Rama Deveza deveza@lbbslaw.com 

Stephen H. Turner turners@cmtlaw.com 

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

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

Dated: 6/7/07 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:07-cv-01026-RMW Document 23 Filed 06/07/07 Page 3 of 3