Godson v. Eltman, Eltman & Cooper, P.C.
285 F.R.D. 255
W.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Plaintiff Christopher Godson sues Defendants Eltman, Eltman & Cooper, P.C. and LVNV Funding under the FDCPA, alleging a form-letter debt collection violated the Act.
- In September 2010, Godson received a letter stating he owed $2,628.72 and offering a 20% discount for full settlement, described as a potential “savings.”
- Godson alleges the letter was a form letter sent to hundreds or thousands of New York consumers.
- Godson filed suit on September 9, 2011; Defendants answered on December 12, 2011.
- Godson moved to strike several affirmative defenses (January 2012) and for class certification (March 2012); Defendants opposed.
- Defendants moved to seal Eltman’s audited financial statements in August 2012, which the court granted in part; ruling was issued after briefing concluded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Twombly/Iqbal apply to affirmative defenses. | Godson argues defenses lack factual plausibility. | Eltman contends applicability is unsettled and defenses may remain. | Court adopts Shechter-based approach; strikes several bare boilerplate defenses. |
| Whether certain defenses should be struck for lack of factual notice. | Godson asserts defenses 4, 6, 7, 11–13 lack facts. | Defendants offered no substantive response; defenses should remain. | Defenses 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13 struck; repleading allowed with facts. |
| Whether class certification should be deferred due to discovery needs and excusable neglect. | Godson seeks delay to complete discovery and avoid mootness risk. | Defendants oppose delay; certify now. | Class certification deferred pending further discovery; excusable neglect found due to oversight. |
| Whether the request to seal financial documents should be granted. | Not required to disclose sensitive data. | Documents contain sensitive financial information. | Motion to seal granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading plausibility standard for Rule 8(a)(2))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings; required facts to state claim)
- Shechter v. Comptroller of City of N.Y., 79 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 1996) (bare-bones defenses lack efficacy; supports notice requirement for defenses)
- Pioneer Invs. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S. 380 (U.S. 1993) (excusable neglect factors in reopening deadlines)
- National Acceptance Co. of America v. Regal Prods., Inc., 155 F.R.D. 631 (E.D. Wis. 1994) (context for evaluating bare defenses and notice)
- Racick v. Dominion, 270 F.R.D. 228 (E.D. N.C. 2010) (courts extend plausibility to affirmative defenses in some circuits)
- Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011) (deferral of ruling on class certification allowable to permit discovery)
- Salcer v. Envicon Equities Corp., 744 F.2d 935 (2d Cir. 1984) (motion to strike often not favored unless clear prejudice)