## Facts

- A New York civil court entered a foreign judgment against a “Louis Racick” relating to a Visa credit-card debt.
- Dominion Law Associates, PLLC and related individuals filed the foreign judgment in Cumberland County, North Carolina and pursued collection against Louis Racick (plaintiff).
- When a sheriff attempted service, plaintiff asserted his Social Security number did not match the New York judgment debtor, but defendants allegedly continued collection activity and did not promptly release the judgment.
- Plaintiff alleged the docketed judgment harmed his ability to refinance his home and obtain vehicle credit, and that efforts to correct the error were ignored.
- Plaintiff retained counsel; state-court proceedings resulted in an order vacating and striking the foreign judgment from the North Carolina docket (Nov. 24, 2009).
- Plaintiff filed a federal action asserting an FDCPA claim and seeking statutory damages, costs, attorney’s fees, and actual damages.
- Defendants answered and asserted thirteen affirmative defenses.
- Plaintiff moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike most affirmative defenses as conclusory and insufficiently pleaded.

## Issues

1. Whether the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility pleading standard applies to affirmative defenses pleaded under Rule 8(c).
2. Whether defendants’ affirmative defenses, as pleaded, provided sufficient factual content to give fair notice and state plausible defenses.
3. Whether Rule 12(f) relief was appropriate, and if so, whether striking should be with leave to amend.

## Decision

- The court held that the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard applies to affirmative defenses under Rule 8(c).
- The court granted the motion to strike in part and denied it in part.
- The court struck defendants’ Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Twelfth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth affirmative defenses as insufficiently pleaded.
- The court allowed other defenses to remain and granted defendants leave to amend within fourteen days to cure identified pleading defects.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 12(f) permits a court to strike an insufficient defense or redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter to avoid litigating spurious issues.
- Rule 8(c) requires a party to affirmatively state affirmative defenses; the pleading must provide fair notice of the defense.
- Under Twombly/Iqbal, a pleading must contain more than labels and conclusions; affirmative defenses likewise must include enough factual matter to render the defense plausible and to explain how the doctrine could apply to the case.
- Boilerplate defenses that merely recite legal doctrines (without factual context showing “how or why” they apply) may be stricken as insufficient.
- When defendants may lack complete information at the answer stage, courts may strike defective defenses without prejudice and allow amendment to add supporting factual allegations.

## Conclusion

The court required affirmative defenses to meet a plausibility-based pleading standard and used Rule 12(f) to strike multiple conclusory defenses, while permitting amendment to balance early notice and efficiency against defendants’ limited initial access to facts.


Racick v. Dominion Law Assocs., 270 F.R.D. 228 (E.D.N.C. 2010)