United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
L. PATRICK AULD, Magistrate Judge.
This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses of Defendant Experian Information Solutions, LLC. (Docket Entry 22.) For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the instant Motion in part (as to the fourth and fifth defenses) and will deny it in part (as to the first defense).
Plaintiff's Complaint asserts, inter alia, violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") by Defendant Experian. (Docket Entry 5 at 13-15.) It alleges that, in early 2013, Plaintiff discovered an error in her credit report, as prepared by Defendant Experian, concerning $151 owed to an emergency room for medical treatment rendered in 2010. (Id. at 4-10.) After Defendant Experian filed its Answer (Docket Entry 10), Plaintiff contacted Defendant Experian regarding several of its asserted affirmative defenses. (Docket Entry 23 at 2; see also Docket Entry 24 at 2.) Defendant Experian agreed to remove some of these affirmative defenses (Docket Entry 23 at 2; see also Docket Entry 24 at 2) and filed an Amended Answer (Docket Entry 17).
Plaintiff now moves to strike the following three affirmative defenses from Defendant Experian's Amended Answer:
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Complaint herein, and each cause of action thereof, fails to set forth facts sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted against [Defendant] Experian and further fails to state facts sufficient to entitle Plaintiff to the relief sought, or to any relief whatsoever from [Defendant] Experian.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Complaint and each claim for relief therein is barred by laches.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
[Defendant] Experian is informed and believes and thereon alleges that some or all claims for relief in the Complaint herein are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation, including but not limited to 15 U.S.C. § 1681p.
(Id. at 29; see also Docket Entry 23 at 12-16.) Defendant Experian responded in opposition with respect to its first defense, but agreed to withdraw its fourth and fifth defenses. (Docket Entry 24 at 6-10.) Plaintiff did not ...