Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Racick v. Dominion Law Associates

United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedurePleadingRule 12(f)Affirmative DefensesRule 12(f)Rule 8(c)affirmative defensesplausibility

Facts

Plaintiff alleged defendants attempted to enforce and collect on a foreign judgment against him even though he was not the actual judgment debtor. He claimed defendants continued collection efforts, failed to release the judgment, and caused credit and refinancing problems, emotional distress, and litigation expenses. Defendants answered and asserted numerous affirmative defenses, many in boilerplate form without supporting facts. Plaintiff moved to strike those defenses.

Issue

Whether the Twombly and Iqbal plausibility standard applies to affirmative defenses under Rule 8(c), and if so, whether defendants' asserted affirmative defenses were pleaded with enough factual specificity to survive a Rule 12(f) motion to strike.

Rule

In this court, the pleading requirements of Twombly and Iqbal apply to affirmative defenses as well as complaints. An affirmative defense must be intelligible, give fair notice, and be plausibly suggested by the facts; at a minimum, the facts asserted and reasonable inferences from them must plausibly suggest a cognizable defense. Under Rule 12(f), a defense may be stricken if it is clearly insufficient, though motions to strike are disfavored and leave to amend ordinarily should be allowed.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal consumer-protection suit filed in Raleigh, Maya Benton alleges that Cedar Point Recovery Group used unlawful collection tactics. In its answer, Cedar Point lists as an affirmative defense only: "Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Maya moves to strike under Rule 12(f).

How should the court most likely rule under the majority approach adopted in this case?

Explanation. The court held that Twombly/Iqbal applies to affirmative defenses. A defense must be intelligible, give fair notice, and be plausibly suggested by facts. A bare assertion that the complaint fails to state a claim is too conclusory and may be stricken under Rule 12(f), but because motions to strike are disfavored, leave to amend ordinarily should be permitted. (Derived from Racick v. Dominion Law Associates (n.d.).)