Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01546/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01546-0/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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE—No. C-07-01546 RMW 

MAG

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 6/18/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DON ROLLAND DONFRAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

GCFS, INC., d/b/a/ GREATER CALIFORNIA

FINANCIAL SERVICES, and JOHN

RAYMOND GRAVES,

Defendant.

No. C-07-01546 RMW

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

[Re Docket No. 8]

Plaintiff Don Rolland Donfray moves to strike defendant's seventh 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 non-intentional bona fide error. The court finds

Case 5:07-cv-01546-RMW Document 18 Filed 06/18/07 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 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE—No. C-07-01546 RMW 

MAG 2

that defendants have pleaded the defense with sufficient detail to permit plaintiff to take discovery

on the asserted defense, particularly in light of the further explanation by defendant in its case

management statement and its opposition to this motion. No enhanced pleading is necessary. 

Accordingly, the court denies plaintiff's motion to strike. 

DATED: 6/18/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-01546-RMW Document 18 Filed 06/18/07 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 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE—No. C-07-01546 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:

Teresa M. La Voie tlavoie@ecplslaw.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: 6/18/07 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:07-cv-01546-RMW Document 18 Filed 06/18/07 Page 3 of 3