United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
TIMOTHY D.DEGIUSTI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Plaintiff Dannielle Bruner's Motion to
Strike Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f) [Doc. No. 73] and Brief
in Support [Doc. No. 74]. Defendant Encore Capital Group,
Inc., has filed its Response [Doc. No. 75]. The matter is
fully briefed and at issue.
contends the defendant companies engage in unlawful credit
reporting and debt collection practices. Motion to
Strike, 1. She moves to strike Defendant Encore's
Affirmative Defenses Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 as well as
Defendant Encore's request for relief in the form of
costs and attorney fees. Plaintiff asserts these defenses and
this request for relief are legally and factually
insufficient pursuant to Rule 12(f), Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The Affirmative Defenses at issue state:
1. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Encore upon
which relief may be granted.
2. The Court does not have personal jurisdiction over Encore,
as Encore does not transact business in Oklahoma, is not
incorporated in Oklahoma, and its principal place of business
is not in Oklahoma.
3. Encore at all times followed the requirements of the FCRA
and established and followed reasonable procedures to avoid
violations of the FCRA.
4. Any alleged damages of Plaintiff, which Encore continues
to deny, is the result of the acts or omissions of Plaintiff
or others over whom Encore has no control and for whom it has
5. Plaintiff failed to mitigate her alleged damages.
6. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of
Encore Group's Answer to Amended Complaint [Doc. No.
argues that the aforementioned defenses and request for
relief are factually insufficient to provide notice and will
unduly prejudice Plaintiff. Plaintiff also asserts that the
defenses fail to meet the standards set forth in Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 663 (2009),
that Encore has made admissions which vitiate Affirmative
Defense No. 2. Defendant Encore, in response, states the
challenged defenses and request for relief provide Plaintiff
with adequate notice, do not prejudice Plaintiff, and that
Twombly and Iqbal standards do not
Court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient
defense, or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent or
scandalous matter.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). However, such
relief is a severe remedy and generally disfavored.
United States v. Hardage, 116 F.R.D. 460, 463 (W.D.
Okla. 1987); see also, Sender v. Mann, 423 F.Supp.2d
1155, 1163 (D. Colo. 2006). In fact, such motions, in
addition to being disfavored, are often “considered
purely cosmetic or ‘time wasters.'” Lane
v. Page, 272 F.R.D. 581, 587 (D.N.M. 2011) (quoting 5C
C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice &
Procedure § 1382 (3d. ed.2004)); see also,
Tavasci v. Cambron, CIV 16-0461 JB/LF, 2016 WL
6405896, at *7 (D.N.M. Oct. ...