ANSWER OF RESURGENT 

CAPITAL SERVICES, LP 

0605-03 ss 

-1- 

STEPHEN A. BERNHEIM 

ATTORNEY AT LAW 

512 Bell Street 

Edmonds, Washington 98020 

(425) 712-8318 

Fax (425) 712-8418 

e-mail:steve@stevebernheim.com

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

Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT SEATTLE 

TANA IHRIG and MARK IHRIG, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, formerly 

known as PROVIDIAN NATIONAL BANK; 

NEW AMERICAN CAPITAL, INC., a 

Delaware corporation, formerly known as 

PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION; 

RICHARD J. BOUDREAU & ASSOCIATES, 

LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability 

company; LVNV FUNDING LLC, a Delaware 

limited liability company; PHILLIPS & 

COHEN ASSOCIATES, LTD, a New Jersey 

corporation; and RESURGENT CAPITAL 

SERVICES, LP, a Delaware limited 

partnership, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

NO. 2:06-cv-00512-RSM 

ANSWER OF RESURGENT 

CAPITAL SERVICES, LP 

Defendant Resurgent Capital Services LP (hereinafter “Resurgent”) as and for its 

Answer to the Complaint of Plaintiffs Tana Ihrig and Mark Ihrig (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) 

denies each and every allegation unless otherwise specifically admitted herein or otherwise 

qualified and states and alleges as follows: 

Case 2:06-cv-00512-RSM Document 11 Filed 06/01/06 Page 1 of 12
ANSWER OF RESURGENT 

CAPITAL SERVICES, LP 

0605-03 ss 

-2- 

STEPHEN A. BERNHEIM 

ATTORNEY AT LAW 

512 Bell Street 

Edmonds, Washington 98020 

(425) 712-8318 

Fax (425) 712-8418 

e-mail:steve@stevebernheim.com

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. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, 

Resurgent admits that Plaintiffs have brought an action against Defendants alleging 

violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., the Fair Debt 

Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and various state laws, but 

denies that it has violated any law. Resurgent states that it has insufficient information and 

knowledge to either admit or deny the remaining allegations and therefore denies the same. 

2. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, 

Resurgent admits that jurisdiction and venue are asserted under the statutory sections 

referenced therein, but denies that jurisdiction or venue are appropriate as Resurgent has not 

violated any law. 

3. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, 

Resurgent admits that Plaintiffs allegedly owe a claim. Resurgent states that it has 

insufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the remaining allegations set 

forth in said Paragraph and therefore denies the same. 

4. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, 

Resurgent states that to the extent the allegations are directed against it, Resurgent admits 

that at times it is a debt collector, but it has insufficient information and knowledge to either 

admit or deny whether it acted as a debt collector in the instant matter. To all other extents, 

Resurgent states that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny 

the remaining allegations set forth in said Paragraph and therefore denies the same. 

5. Resurgent states that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either 

admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and therefore 

denies the same. 

6. Resurgent states that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either 

admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and therefore 

denies the same. 

Case 2:06-cv-00512-RSM Document 11 Filed 06/01/06 Page 2 of 12
ANSWER OF RESURGENT 

CAPITAL SERVICES, LP 

0605-03 ss 

-3- 

STEPHEN A. BERNHEIM 

ATTORNEY AT LAW 

512 Bell Street 

Edmonds, Washington 98020 

(425) 712-8318 

Fax (425) 712-8418 

e-mail:steve@stevebernheim.com

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

7. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, 

Resurgent admits that it is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the State of 

Delaware with offices in the locations alleged in South Dakota and South Carolina. 

Resurgent denies that it currently has an office in Houston, Texas. Resurgent admits that it is 

licensed with the State of Washington Department of Licensing as an out-of-state collection 

agency and further admits that on occasion it publishes credit information and attempts to 

collect debt in Washington state as well as other states. 

8. Resurgent states that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either 

admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and therefore 

denies the same. 

9. Resurgent states that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either 

admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and therefore 

denies the same. 

10. Resurgent states that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either 

admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and therefore 

denies the same. 

11. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, on information and belief, Resurgent admits that Defendant Phillips and Cohen 

Associates, Ltd. (“Phillips”) contacted Plaintiffs. Resurgent denies that Phillips did so on 

behalf of Resurgent. As to all other allegations, Resurgent has insufficient information and 

knowledge to either admit or deny and therefore denies the same. 

12. Resurgent states that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either 

admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and therefore 

denies the same. 

13. Resurgent states that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either 

admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and therefore 

denies the same. 

Case 2:06-cv-00512-RSM Document 11 Filed 06/01/06 Page 3 of 12
ANSWER OF RESURGENT 

CAPITAL SERVICES, LP 

0605-03 ss 

-4- 

STEPHEN A. BERNHEIM 

ATTORNEY AT LAW 

512 Bell Street 

Edmonds, Washington 98020 

(425) 712-8318 

Fax (425) 712-8418 

e-mail:steve@stevebernheim.com

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

14. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, Resurgent admits that Resurgent and LVNV Funding LLC are affiliated, yet 

separate entities and denies all remaining allegations against it. To all other extents, 

Resurgent has insufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the remaining 

allegations set forth in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and therefore denies the same. 

15. Resurgent states that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either 

admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and therefore 

denies the same. 

16. Resurgent states that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either 

admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and therefore 

denies the same. 

17. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, Resurgent denies all allegations against it. To all other extents, Resurgent states 

that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations 

therein set forth and therefore denies the same. 

18. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, Resurgent denies all allegations against it. To all other extents, Resurgent states 

that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations 

therein set forth and therefore denies the same. 

19. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, Resurgent denies all allegations against it. To all other extents, Resurgent states 

that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations 

therein set forth and therefore denies the same. 

20. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, Resurgent denies all allegations against it. To all other extents, Resurgent states 

that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations 

therein set forth and therefore denies the same. 

Case 2:06-cv-00512-RSM Document 11 Filed 06/01/06 Page 4 of 12
ANSWER OF RESURGENT 

CAPITAL SERVICES, LP 

0605-03 ss 

-5- 

STEPHEN A. BERNHEIM 

ATTORNEY AT LAW 

512 Bell Street 

Edmonds, Washington 98020 

(425) 712-8318 

Fax (425) 712-8418 

e-mail:steve@stevebernheim.com

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

21. Resurgent states that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either 

admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and therefore 

denies the same. 

22. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, Resurgent denies all allegations against it. To all other extents, Resurgent states 

that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations 

therein set forth and therefore denies the same. 

23. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, Resurgent denies all allegations against it. To all other extents, Resurgent states 

that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations 

therein set forth and therefore denies the same. 

24. In response to Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Resurgent restates and 

realleges paragraphs 1 through 23. 

25. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, and all its subparts, to the extent that the allegations constitute a conclusion of 

law, no response is necessary. To the extent a response is necessary, Resurgent denies all 

allegations against it. To all other extents, Resurgent states that it has insufficient information 

and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations therein set forth and therefore denies 

the same. 

26. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, Resurgent denies all allegations against it. To all other extents, Resurgent states 

that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations 

therein set forth and therefore denies the same. 

27. In response to Paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Resurgent restates and 

realleges paragraphs 1 through 26. 

28. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, and all its subparts, to the extent that the allegations constitute a conclusion of 

Case 2:06-cv-00512-RSM Document 11 Filed 06/01/06 Page 5 of 12
ANSWER OF RESURGENT 

CAPITAL SERVICES, LP 

0605-03 ss 

-6- 

STEPHEN A. BERNHEIM 

ATTORNEY AT LAW 

512 Bell Street 

Edmonds, Washington 98020 

(425) 712-8318 

Fax (425) 712-8418 

e-mail:steve@stevebernheim.com

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

law, no response is necessary. To the extent a response is necessary, Resurgent denies all 

allegations against it. To all other extents, Resurgent states that it has insufficient information 

and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations therein set forth and therefore denies 

the same. 

29. In response to Paragraph 29 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Resurgent states that the 

allegations constitute a conclusion of law and as such no response is necessary. To the extent 

that a response is required, Resurgent states that it has insufficient information and 

knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations set forth and therefore denies the same. 

30. Resurgent states that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either 

admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and therefore 

denies the same. 

31. In response to Paragraph 31 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Resurgent states that the 

allegations constitute a conclusion of law and as such no response is necessary. To the extent 

that a response is required, Resurgent denies all allegations against it. To all other extents, 

Resurgent states that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny 

the allegations therein set forth and therefore denies the same. 

32. In response to Paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Resurgent states that the 

allegations constitute a conclusion of law and as such no response is necessary. To the extent 

that a response is required, Resurgent denies all allegations against it. To all other extents, 

Resurgent states that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny 

the allegations therein set forth and therefore denies the same. 

33. In response to Paragraph 33 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Resurgent states that the 

allegations constitute a conclusion of law and as such no response is necessary. To the extent 

that a response is required, Resurgent states that it has insufficient information and 

knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations therein set forth and therefore denies the 

same. 

Case 2:06-cv-00512-RSM Document 11 Filed 06/01/06 Page 6 of 12
ANSWER OF RESURGENT 

CAPITAL SERVICES, LP 

0605-03 ss 

-7- 

STEPHEN A. BERNHEIM 

ATTORNEY AT LAW 

512 Bell Street 

Edmonds, Washington 98020 

(425) 712-8318 

Fax (425) 712-8418 

e-mail:steve@stevebernheim.com

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

34. In response to Paragraph 34 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Resurgent states that the 

allegations constitute a conclusion of law and as such no response is necessary. To the extent 

that a response is required, Resurgent denies all allegations against it. To all other extents, 

Resurgent states that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny 

the allegations therein set forth and therefore denies the same. 

35. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 35 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, Resurgent denies all allegations against it. To all other extents, Resurgent states 

that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations 

therein set forth and therefore denies the same. 

36. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 36 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, Resurgent denies all allegations against it. To all other extents, Resurgent states 

that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations 

therein set forth and therefore denies the same. 

37. In response to Paragraph 37 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Resurgent restates and 

realleges paragraphs 1 through 36. 

38. Resurgent states that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either 

admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 38 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and therefore 

denies the same. 

39. Resurgent states that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either 

admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 39 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and therefore 

denies the same. 

40. Resurgent states that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either 

admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 40 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and therefore 

denies the same. 

41. Resurgent states that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either 

admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 41 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and therefore 

denies the same. 

Case 2:06-cv-00512-RSM Document 11 Filed 06/01/06 Page 7 of 12
ANSWER OF RESURGENT 

CAPITAL SERVICES, LP 

0605-03 ss 

-8- 

STEPHEN A. BERNHEIM 

ATTORNEY AT LAW 

512 Bell Street 

Edmonds, Washington 98020 

(425) 712-8318 

Fax (425) 712-8418 

e-mail:steve@stevebernheim.com

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

42. Resurgent states that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either 

admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 42 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and therefore 

denies the same. 

43. Resurgent states that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either 

admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 43 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and therefore 

denies the same. 

44. Resurgent states that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either 

admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 44 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and therefore 

denies the same. 

45. Resurgent states that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either 

admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 45 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and therefore 

denies the same. 

46. Resurgent states that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either 

admit or deny the allegations set forth in Paragraph 46 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and therefore 

denies the same. 

47. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 47 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, Resurgent denies all allegations against it. To all other extents, Resurgent states 

that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations 

therein set forth and therefore denies the same. 

48. In response to Paragraph 48 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Resurgent restates and 

realleges paragraphs 1 through 47. 

49. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 49 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, Resurgent denies all allegations against it. To all other extents, Resurgent states 

that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations 

therein set forth and therefore denies the same. 

Case 2:06-cv-00512-RSM Document 11 Filed 06/01/06 Page 8 of 12
ANSWER OF RESURGENT 

CAPITAL SERVICES, LP 

0605-03 ss 

-9- 

STEPHEN A. BERNHEIM 

ATTORNEY AT LAW 

512 Bell Street 

Edmonds, Washington 98020 

(425) 712-8318 

Fax (425) 712-8418 

e-mail:steve@stevebernheim.com

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

50. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 50 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, Resurgent denies all allegations against it. To all other extents, Resurgent states 

that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations 

therein set forth and therefore denies the same. 

51. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 51 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, Resurgent denies all allegations against it. To all other extents, Resurgent states 

that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations 

therein set forth and therefore denies the same. 

52. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 52 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, Resurgent denies all allegations against it. To all other extents, Resurgent states 

that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations 

therein set forth and therefore denies the same. 

53. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 53 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, Resurgent denies all allegations against it. To all other extents, Resurgent states 

that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations 

therein set forth and therefore denies the same. 

54. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 54 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, Resurgent denies all allegations against it. To all other extents, Resurgent states 

that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations 

therein set forth and therefore denies the same. 

55. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 55 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, Resurgent denies all allegations against it. To all other extents, Resurgent states 

that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations 

therein set forth and therefore denies the same. 

56. In response to Paragraph 56 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Resurgent restates and 

realleges paragraphs 1 through 55. 

Case 2:06-cv-00512-RSM Document 11 Filed 06/01/06 Page 9 of 12
ANSWER OF RESURGENT 

CAPITAL SERVICES, LP 

0605-03 ss 

-10- 

STEPHEN A. BERNHEIM 

ATTORNEY AT LAW 

512 Bell Street 

Edmonds, Washington 98020 

(425) 712-8318 

Fax (425) 712-8418 

e-mail:steve@stevebernheim.com

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

57. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 57 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, Resurgent denies all allegations against it. To all other extents, Resurgent states 

that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations 

therein set forth and therefore denies the same. 

58. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 58 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, Resurgent denies all allegations against it. To all other extents, Resurgent states 

that it has insufficient information and knowledge to either admit or deny the allegations 

therein set forth and therefore denies the same. 

59. In response to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 59 of Plaintiffs’ 

Complaint, Resurgent denies all allegations. 

60. In response to Paragraph 60 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Resurgent admits that 

Plaintiffs assert the right to amend this Complaint at a later date, but denies that Plaintiffs 

have the right to amend this Complaint as to Resurgent as it has not violated any law. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

FIRST DEFENSE 

All of Resurgent’s actions complied with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 

U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 

et seq., and Washington state laws, to the extent said laws are applicable to this matter, if 

they are applicable at all. 

SECOND DEFENSE 

Any violation of the law or damage suffered by Plaintiffs, which Resurgent denies, 

was due to the affirmative actions and/or omissions of others and does not give rise to any 

liability of Resurgent. 

THIRD DEFENSE 

Any violation of the law or damage suffered by Plaintiffs, which Resurgent denies, 

was due to the affirmative actions and/or omission of others and does not give rise to any 

claim of damages against Resurgent. 

Case 2:06-cv-00512-RSM Document 11 Filed 06/01/06 Page 10 of 12
ANSWER OF RESURGENT 

CAPITAL SERVICES, LP 

0605-03 ss 

-11- 

STEPHEN A. BERNHEIM 

ATTORNEY AT LAW 

512 Bell Street 

Edmonds, Washington 98020 

(425) 712-8318 

Fax (425) 712-8418 

e-mail:steve@stevebernheim.com

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

FOURTH DEFENSE 

Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against 

Resurgent. 

FIFTH DEFENSE 

Any violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., 

which Defendant Resurgent denies, was not intentional and was the result, if at all, of a bona 

fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any 

such error. 

SIXTH DEFENSE 

Resurgent denies all material allegations which purport that Resurgent violated the 

Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., the Fair Debt Collection 

Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., or any Washington state law or 

regulation. 

SEVENTH DEFENSE 

Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs’ underlying credit contract calls for and 

requires arbitration of any and all disputes. 

EIGHTH DEFENSE 

Plaintiffs have suffered no damages as a result of any acts or omissions of Resurgent. 

NINTH DEFENSE 

Plaintiffs’ claims for violation of Washington law are preempted by the FCRA. 

TENTH DEFENSE 

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations. 

ELEVENTH DEFENSE 

Resurgent reserves the right to seek its reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to 

the 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692k(a)(3), 1681n(c), and 1681o(b) if the Court should deem Plaintiffs’ 

action to have been brought in bad faith for the purpose of harassing Resurgent, and pursuant 

to RCW 4.84.250 et seq. 

Case 2:06-cv-00512-RSM Document 11 Filed 06/01/06 Page 11 of 12
ANSWER OF RESURGENT 

CAPITAL SERVICES, LP 

0605-03 ss 

-12- 

STEPHEN A. BERNHEIM 

ATTORNEY AT LAW 

512 Bell Street 

Edmonds, Washington 98020 

(425) 712-8318 

Fax (425) 712-8418 

e-mail:steve@stevebernheim.com

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

TWELFTH DEFENSE 

 Defendants’ state law claims are barred by 15 U.S.C. § 1681h(e). 

RESERVATION OF DEFENSES 

Resurgent reserves the right to assert such other affirmative defenses available 

pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as applicable as may be revealed through 

disclosure and discovery in this matter. 

WHEREFORE, Resurgent prays for an order and judgment of this Court in its favor 

against Plaintiffs as follows: 

1. Dismissing all causes of action against Resurgent with prejudice and on the 

merits; 

Awarding Resurgent such other and further relief as the Court deems just and 

equitable. 

DATED this 1st day of June, 2006. 

/s/ Stephen A. Bernheim__________________ 

Stephen A. Bernheim, WSBA #15225 

Attorney for Defendants LVNV Funding LLC 

and Resurgent Capital Services, LP 

Case 2:06-cv-00512-RSM Document 11 Filed 06/01/06 Page 12 of 12