Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Walters v. Performant Recovery, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

August 21, 2015

TIFFANY WALTERS, Plaintiff,
v.
PERFORMANT RECOVERY, INC., Defendant

Page 76

          For Tiffany Walters, Plaintiff: Joshua R.I. Cohen, LEAD ATTORNEY, Cohen Consumer Law, West Dover, VT.

         For Performant Recovery, Inc., Defendant: Jonathan D. Elliot, LEAD ATTORNEY, Michael A. Carbone, Sabato Pellegrino Fiano, Zeldes, Needle & Cooper, P.C., Bridgeport, CT.

Page 77

          MEMORANDUM OF DECISION GRANTING AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES [Dkt. # 15]

         Hon. Vanessa L. Bryant, United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff Tiffany Walters brings claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (" FDCPA" ), and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § § 42-110a, et. seq. (" CUTPA" ), against Defendant Performant Recovery Inc. (" Performant" ), a private debt collection agency, in connection with Performant's efforts to collect payment on Plaintiff's federal student loan.

         I. Background

         The Complaint was originally filed in Connecticut Superior Court, on November 21, 2014. [Dkt. #1-1, Compl. at 1]. On December 30, 2014, Defendant removed this action to federal court. [Dkt. #1-2, Notice of Removal, at 2]. On February 4, 2015, Defendant filed its Answer. See [Dkt. #14]. The Answer asserts the following four affirmative defenses:

First Affirmative Defense
Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

         Second Affirmative Defense

         Plaintiff['s] claims, in whole or in part, have been waived by plaintiff.

         Third Affirmative Defense

         Plaintiff's claims are barred to the extent that any violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by defendant, which defendant denies, was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.

         D. Fourth Affirmative Defense

Page 78

         Plaintiff's action is barred, whole or in part, to the extent that it was commenced after the running of any applicable statute of limitations.

[ Id. at 4-5].

         Six days later, on February 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike each of the affirmative defenses for failure to comply with the pleading requirements in Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and other legal deficiencies. [Dkt. #15]. For the reasons that follow, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.