Bernard Gifford v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California Central District Bernard Gifford v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

Bernard Gifford v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

Plaintiff:	Bernard Gifford
Defendant:	Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Case Number:	2:2010cv08040
Filed:	October 26, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge:	Jay C. Gandhi
Presiding Judge:	Christina A. Snyder
Nature of Suit:	Consumer Credit

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
December 13, 2011	Filing 37 ORDER OF STIPULATION TO DISMISS by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Upon Stipulation 36 , and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), the matter is hereby dismissed with prejudice. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6. ) (gk)
August 8, 2011	Filing 34 ORDER by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Court concludes that, viewing the letter as a whole, a reasonable jury could determine that it "created the impression that legal action by defendant is a real possibility," and that therefore, that it wa s a threat to take action that defendant did not intent to take. In reaching this conclusion, Court is persuaded by Brown v. Card Service Center, which considered a letter that had similarly conditional language. Defendant's motion 26 for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED. (Please see order for details) (kpa)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 13, 2011

Filing 37 ORDER OF STIPULATION TO DISMISS by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Upon Stipulation 36 , and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), the matter is hereby dismissed with prejudice. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6. ) (gk)

August 8, 2011

Filing 34 ORDER by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Court concludes that, viewing the letter as a whole, a reasonable jury could determine that it "created the impression that legal action by defendant is a real possibility," and that therefore, that it wa s a threat to take action that defendant did not intent to take. In reaching this conclusion, Court is persuaded by Brown v. Card Service Center, which considered a letter that had similarly conditional language. Defendant's motion 26 for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED. (Please see order for details) (kpa)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Bernard Gifford v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Bernard Gifford
Represented By:	Michael S Agruss
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?