govinfo:USCOURTS-okwd-5_26-cv-00527-0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 
 
CLAUDIA VASQUEZ, ) 
 ) 
 Plaintiff, ) 
 ) 
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-527-SLP 
 ) 
CREDENCE RESOURCE MANAGMENT, ) 
LLC, ) 
 ) 
 Defendant. ) 
 
O R D E R 
 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses [Doc. No. 8]. 
Defendant has filed its Response [Doc. No. 12]. Plaintiff has not filed a reply and the time 
for doing so has expired. See LCvR 7.1(i). 
 Plaintiff moves to strike all six affirmative defenses raised by Defendant in its 
Answer. See Answer [Doc. No. 6] at 5 , ¶¶ 1 -6. Plaintiff contends th ese affirmative 
defenses are “insufficient, frivolous, vague, conclusory and without factual basis ” under 
Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Mot. [Doc. No. 8] at 3-4, 11. 
 Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a district court to 
“strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, 
or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Striking a portion of a pleading is a drastic 
remedy and, therefore, Rule 12(f) motions are generally viewed with disfavor and 
infrequently granted. See 5C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice 
& Procedure , § 1382 (3d ed. 2004) (Rule 12(f) motions “should be denied unles s the 
challenged allegations have no possible relation or logical connection to the subject matter 

2 
 
of the controversy and may cause some sort of significant prejudice to one or more parties 
to the action.” (footnotes omitted)). 
 In its response, Defendant has agreed to withdraw affirmative defenses numbered 2 
through 6 but contends that affirmative defense number 1 is “sufficiently pled.” Resp. 
[Doc. No. 12] at 1. Based on Defendant’s representation, the Court deems Plaintiff’s 
Motion confessed as to affirmative defenses 2,3,4,5, and 6, and those affirmative defenses 
are stricken. 
As to Defendant’s affirmative defense number 1 alleging “bona fide error” under 15 
U.S.C. § 1692(k) ,1 Plaintiff argues the affirmative defense fails to satisfy the pleading 
standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 .2 The Court has previously rejected this argument. See 
Lemons v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs ., No. CIV -23-600-SLP, 2023 WL 8704733 at * 1 
(W.D. Okla. Dec. 15, 2023); see also Loveless v. Trueaccord Corp., No. CIV-24-112-SLP, 
2024 WL 3609107, at *2 (W.D. Okla. July 31, 2024) . The Court adheres to its prior 
findings and rejects Plaintiff’s argument .3 The Court finds Plaintiff has fair notice of the 
defense and discovery will provide the necessary details to Plaintiff. 
 
1 Affirmative defense number 1 is as follows: “To the extent that any violations are established, 
any such violations were not intentional and resulted from bona fide error notwithstanding the 
maintenance of procedures reasonably adopted and specifically intended to avoid any such error.” 
See Answer [Doc. No. 6] at 5, ¶ 1. 
 
2 Whether the Twombly/Iqbal standard governs affirmative defenses is not settled and no Tenth 
Circuit authority has addressed the issue. Absent any precedential authority, the Court declines to 
apply that standard. 
 
3 The Court finds that Plaintiff’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Jerman v. Carlisle, 
McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, 559 U.S. 573 (2010) is misplaced as such decision did not 
address the pleading requirements for the bona fide error affirmative defense. 

3 
Upon review, the Court finds affirmative defense number 1 adequately apprises 
Plaintiff of the nature and substance of the defense raised. The defense, therefore, will not 
be stricken. 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Affirmative 
Defenses [Doc. No. 8] is GRANTED as to Defendant’s affirmative defense numbers 
2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, and those affirmative defenses are STRICKEN. The Motion is 
DENIED as to Defendant’s affirmative defense number 1. 
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of June, 2026. 

Passage view · GavelSight