Racick v. Dominion Law Associates
United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
270 F.R.D. 228 (2010)
- Written by Sara Rhee, JD
Facts
Louis Racick (plaintiff) sued Dominion Law Associates (Dominion) (defendant) under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-92p. Dominion filed an answer with 13 affirmative defenses. The second affirmative defense claimed that Racick failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The third affirmative defense claimed that the applicable statute of limitations barred Racick’s claims. The sixth affirmative defense claimed that Racick’s recovery was subject to statutory limitations. A fourteenth defense stated that Dominion reserved the right to assert additional affirmative defenses as they arose. Racick moved to strike Dominion’s affirmative defenses, claiming that the plausibility standard established by Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), applied to affirmative defenses and that Dominion’s affirmative defenses failed to meet this standard.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fox, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.