David Kruse v. Citibank (South Dakota) NA et al
| David Kruse |
| DOES, Citibank (South Dakota) NA and Experian Information Solutions Inc |
| 5:2008cv00675 |
| May 15, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Eastern Division - Riverside Office |
| Riverside |
| Victor B. Kenton |
| Stephen G. Larson |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act |
| Plaintiff |
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
28
JUDGMENT by Judge Stephen G. Larson: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Preliminary Order (the Award), dated April 13, 2009, entered by the National Arbitration Forum (the NAF) in favor of Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. (Citibank) and against plaintiff David Kruse (Plaintiff) in the arbitration proceeding entitled David Kruse v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., NAF File No. MX0809002157402, is CONFIRMED, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 9, 13. IT IS HE REBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that judgment is entered against Plaintiff and in favor of Citibank. Citibank shall recover against Plaintiff all costs incurred in connection with Citibanks motion to compel arbitration, which the Court granted on September 8, 2008 (see Minute Order, ECF No. 12), and in enforcing the Award pursuant to a Bill of Costs. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (ad)
|
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.
