Ashkhen A Arutyunyan v. American Express Centurion Bank et al
| Ashkhen A Arutyunyan |
| Bank of America Corporation, Barclays Bank Delaware, Cach LLC, Cavalry Portfolio Services LLC, Citi Financial Services LLC, Credit One, GE Capital Financial Inc, Macys Corporate Services Inc, Target Corporate Services Inc, Victorias Secret Stores LLC and American Express Centurion Bank |
| 2:2012cv04123 |
| May 11, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Stephen J. Hillman |
| Consuelo B. Marshall |
| Consumer Credit |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
143
JUDGMENT by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Consistent with this Court's 8/30/2013 Order Granting In Part and Denying In Part Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and dismissing Defendants Bank of America Corporation {&qu ot;BAC"), Barclay's Bank Delaware {"Barclay's), and CACH, LLC {"CACH") with prejudice, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff takes nothing on her Second Amended Complaint against Defendants BAC, Barclay's, and CACH. Judgment shall be entered in favor of these Defendants. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (gk)
|
|
Filing
82
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SANCTIONS 68 by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: The Court again ORDERS Arshak Bartoumian to SHOW CAUSE as to why sanctions should not be imposed for the violations of the rules of this Court described in the prior OSC. Mr. Bartoumian is further ORDERED to provide a written response no later than November 30, 2012. Failure to respond to this Order on or before November 30, 2012 will result in the imposition of monetary sanctions. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7.11, NO ORAL ARGUMENT will be heard on this matter unless ordered by the Court. The Order to Show Cause will stand submitted upon filing of a response. (jre)
|
|
Filing
73
IN CHAMBER/OFF THE RECORD. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on September 10, 2012. [Doc. No. 29.] In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges violations of the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA), Cal. Civ . Code § 1785.25(a), against all defendants. It appears to the Court that Plaintiff may have no private right of action pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.25(a). See Pulver v. Avco Fin. Services, 182 Cal. App. 3d 622, 632 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986 ) (the Legislatures apparent intent in specifying that a right of action exists against any person for violation of the act (§ 1785.31, subd. (a)) was not to impose liability on a supplier of information to a credit reporting agency....) Plainti ffs are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by no later than November 13, 2012 why Count II of the FAC for Violations of the CCRAA should not be dismissed as against all defendants. IT IS SO ORDERED. by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 11/13/2012. (cs)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
