1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (Camden) 

SHARI MCBRIDE

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 

MANAGEMENT, INC. 

Defendant. 

Civil Action No. 

1:10-cv-03292-JHR-AMD 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT WITH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES BY

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT, INC.

NOW COMES Defendant, Accounts Receivable Management, Inc. 

("ARM"), by and through its attorneys, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, 

Coleman & Goggin, P.C., and in answer to the Complaint of Plaintiff, Shari 

McBride, respectfully avers: 

I. ANSWER TO INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

1. Admitted in part and denied in part. ARM admits, upon 

information and belief, that Plaintiff, Shari McBride, is an adult natural 

person who has brought this action seeking actual and statutory damages 

and other relief alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act 

("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. but denies any liability or wrongful 

conduct to the extent alleged in this paragraph and demand strict proof of 

same. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are conclusions of law 

which are denied. ARM refers all questions of law to the Court. 

Case 1:10-cv-03292-JHR -AMD Document 4 Filed 08/02/10 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 12
2 

II. ANSWER TO JURISDICTION

2. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph 2 call for 

determinations of law and are denied as such. ARM refers all questions of 

law to the Court. 

3. Admitted. ARM admits that it maintains its offices in this 

District. 

III. ANSWER TO PARTIES

4. Admitted in part and denied in part. ARM admits, upon 

information and belief, that Plaintiff is an adult natural person who resides 

in San Antonio, Texas at the address set out in this paragraph. ARM denies 

the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph as they call for 

determinations of law and are denied as such. ARM refers all questions of 

law to the Court. 

5. Admitted in part and denied in part. ARM admits that it is a 

corporation that engages in the collection of valid and delinquent debts and 

that it maintains its principal place of business at the address set forth in 

this paragraph. ARM admits to doing business in the State of New Jersey 

but denies doing business in the State of Texas except exclusively through 

means of interstate commerce. Unless otherwise admitted, ARM denies the 

allegations contained in this paragraph. 

6. Admitted in part and denied in part. ARM admits that, at times, 

it utilizes the telephone and mail to collect on delinquent debts owed to third 

Case 1:10-cv-03292-JHR -AMD Document 4 Filed 08/02/10 Page 2 of 9 PageID: 13
3 

parties. ARM denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph as they call 

for determinations of law and are denied as such. ARM refers all questions 

of law to the Court. 

IV. ANSWER TO FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7. Denied. ARM denies the allegations in this paragraph and 

leaves Plaintiff to her proofs. 

8. Denied. ARM has no record of calling Plaintiff with respect to a 

debt obligation owed by a third party identified in this paragraph. 

9. Denied. ARM denies that Plaintiff returned ARM's calls at any 

time. A factual basis of Plaintiff's allegations contained in this paragraph is 

demanded of Plaintiff. 

10. Denied. ARM denies that Plaintiff contacted ARM at any time 

and leaves Plaintiff to her proofs. 

11. Denied. ARM denies that Plaintiff contacted ARM at any time 

and, therefore, denies that the conduct of ARM resulted in any harm to 

Plaintiff. ARM lacks sufficient information or belief as to the truth or falsity 

of the remaining allegations and denies these allegations. 

12. Denied. ARM denies that its conduct was or could be construed 

as false, deceptive, misleading or unfair and denies that it engaged in any 

threatening conduct, conduct that it did not intend or that it talked to 

Plaintiff, let alone tried to coerce Plaintiff to pay a debt. A factual basis for 

the allegations contained in this paragraph is demanded of Plaintiff. 

Case 1:10-cv-03292-JHR -AMD Document 4 Filed 08/02/10 Page 3 of 9 PageID: 14
4 

13. Denied. ARM denies that it violated the FDCPA and, therefore, 

denies the allegations in this paragraph. A factual basis for the allegations 

contained in the paragraph is demanded of Plaintiff. 

14. Admitted in part and denied in part. ARM admits that when its 

employees are acting within the scope of their employment that they are 

under the direct supervision and control of ARM. Unless otherwise 

admitted, ARM denies the allegations of this paragraph and leaves Plaintiff to 

her proofs. 

15. Denied. ARM denies that its conduct or the conduct of its 

employees was or could be construed as malicious, intentional, willful, 

reckless or negligent and denies that it acted in wanton disregard for federal 

or state law and the rights of Plaintiff regarding the valid and delinquent 

debt obligation. A factual basis for the conclusory allegations contained in 

this paragraph is demanded of Plaintiff. 

ANSWER TO COUNT I – FDCPA

16. No response is necessary as Plaintiff simply incorporates 

foregoing allegations in this paragraph. To the extent that a response is 

required, ARM incorporates its responses to the foregoing allegations 

asserted in paragraphs 1 through 15 as though fully set forth herein. 

17. Admitted in part and denied in part. ARM admits this is was 

attempting to collect on a valid and delinquent debt obligation with T-Mobile. 

ARM lacks sufficient information or belief as to the truth of whether the valid 

Case 1:10-cv-03292-JHR -AMD Document 4 Filed 08/02/10 Page 4 of 9 PageID: 15
5 

and delinquent debt obligation at issue in this matter was incurred primarily 

for personal, family or household purposes and a factual basis for these 

allegations is demanded of Plaintiff. The remaining allegations of this 

paragraph call for determinations of law and are denied as such. ARM refers 

all questions of law to the Court. 

18. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph and its 

subparts are conclusions of law and are denied as such. ARM refers all 

questions of law to the Court. 

ANSWER TO JURY DEMAND

Admitted in part and denied in part. ARM admits that Plaintiff 

demands a jury trial as to all issues in her Complaint. ARM denies that 

Plaintiff has the right to a jury trial in the absence of viable claims. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. 

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Any violation of the FDCPA, which ARM denies, was not intentional 

and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of 

procedures reasonably adapted to avoid such error. 

Case 1:10-cv-03292-JHR -AMD Document 4 Filed 08/02/10 Page 5 of 9 PageID: 16
6 

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff suffered no damage from the alleged violations by ARM and 

therefore is not entitled to any award of damages, attorney's fees or costs. 

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Any violation of the law or damage suffered by Plaintiff, which ARM 

denies, was due to the affirmative actions and/or omissions of Plaintiff or 

others and does not give rise to any liability of ARM. 

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Any violation of the law of damage suffered by Plaintiff, which ARM 

denies, was due to the affirmative actions and/or omissions of Plaintiff or 

others and does not give rise to any claim of damages against ARM. 

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

In the event that Plaintiff is adequately able to plead a violation of the 

FDCPA as to ARM, Plaintiff's entitlement to statutory damages is capped at 

$1,000.00 per action. See Goodman v. People's Bank, et al., 209 Fed. Appx. 

111 (3d Cir. 2006); Brown v. Law Offices of Butterfield, 2004 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 9822, *16 n. 8, Civil Action No. 03-CV-05850 (E.D. Pa., May 24, 

2004); Dowling v. Kucker Kraus & Bruh, LLP, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11000 

(S.D.N.Y. 2005); Mann v. Acclaim Fin. Servs., 348 F. Supp. 2d 923, 926 (S.D. 

Ohio 2004); See also Ganske v. Checkrite, Ltd., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4345, 

12-13 (D. Wis. 1997); Wright v. Finance Service of Norwalk, Inc., 22 F.3d 

647, 650-51 (6th Cir. 1994); Harper v. Better Business Services, Inc., 961 

Case 1:10-cv-03292-JHR -AMD Document 4 Filed 08/02/10 Page 6 of 9 PageID: 17
7 

F.2d 1561, 1563 (11th Cir. 1992); Donahue v. NFS, Inc., 781 F. Supp. 188, 

191 (W.D.N.Y. 1991); Wiener v. Bloomfield, 901 F. Supp. 771, 778 (S.D.N.Y. 

1995); Teng v. Metropolitan Retail Recovery, 851 F. Supp. 61, 69 (E.D.N.Y. 

1994): Beattie v. D.M. Collections, Inc., 764 F. Supp. 925, 928 (D.Del. 1991); 

Harvey v. United Adjusters, 509 F. Supp. 1218, 1222 (D. Or. 1981). 

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue a claim premised on 15 U.S.C. 

§1692b. 

DEMAND FOR SPECIFICATION OF MONEY DAMAGES

Pursuant to Local Rule 8.1, Allied demand that Plaintiff, within ten 

(10) days, furnish ARM with a written statement detailing the amount of 

damages claimed as to ARM, including, but not limited to, all concrete 

damages in the form of out-of-pocket expenses and pecuniary loss, as 

asserted in the Complaint, and the methodology in assessing such actual 

damages. 

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO R. 4:5-1, I hereby certify that I am unaware of other 

pending actions relevant to the instant Complaint. It is not currently known 

whether other parties should be joined. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant, Accounts Receivable Management, Inc., 

respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter a judgment in its favor 

Case 1:10-cv-03292-JHR -AMD Document 4 Filed 08/02/10 Page 7 of 9 PageID: 18
8 

dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint and any and all other relief as the Court 

deems is just and equitable. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER,

 COLEMAN & GOGGIN 

 By: /s/ Andrew M. Schwartz / ams79427

 ANDREW M. SCHWARTZ, ESQUIRE 

 1845 Walnut Street, 17th Floor 

 Philadelphia, PA 19103 

(215) 575-2765 / (215) 575-0856 (f) 

amschwartz@mdwcg.com

 Attorneys for Defendant 

Accounts Receivable Management, Inc. 

Case 1:10-cv-03292-JHR -AMD Document 4 Filed 08/02/10 Page 8 of 9 PageID: 19
9 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (Camden) 

SHARI MCBRIDE

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 

MANAGEMENT, INC. 

Defendant. 

Civil Action No. 

1:10-cv-03292-JHR-AMD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Andrew M. Schwartz, Esquire, do hereby certify that a true and 

correct copy of Defendant, Accounts Receivable Management, Inc.'s Answer 

to Plaintiff's Complaint with Affirmative Defenses was filed and served upon 

counsel of record by ECF on August 2, 2010. 

By: /s/Andrew M. Schwartz 

ANDREW M. SCHWARTZ, ESQUIRE 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

 ARM Associates, Inc. 

 

Case 1:10-cv-03292-JHR -AMD Document 4 Filed 08/02/10 Page 9 of 9 PageID: 20