Tourgeman v. Collins Financial Services, Inc. et al
| David Tourgeman |
| Collins Financial Services, Inc., Nelson & Kennard, Dell Financial Services, L.P., DFS Acceptance, DFS Production, American Investment Bank, N.A. and DOES |
| 3:2008cv01392 |
| July 31, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| XX Outside US |
| Janis L. Sammartino |
| Nita L. Stormes |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 Fair Debt Collection 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
478
ORDER Dismissing Class Claim. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 7/15/16. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kas)
|
|
Filing
281
ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 259 Plaintiff's Amended Motion for class certification, and Denying 234 Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration.Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 4/17/12. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(ecs)
|
|
Filing
257
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 244 Motion for Sanctions: Plaintiff's request for facts supporting numerosity to be taken as established is DENIED. Plaintiff's request for sanctions in the form of attorney's fees and costs is partially GRANTED. Defendants SHALL PAY fees to Plaintiff's counsel at the rate of $450 per hour for 6.8 hours of courthouse research, 7.8 hours of preparation for the Reply brief, and the hours spent on preparing the motion for sancti ons to be provided by Plaintiff's counsel. Plaintiff's counsel SHALL FILE a declaration with the Court outlining the number of hours he spent preparing the motion for sanctions no later than 1/20/12. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 1/5/12. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lmt)
|
|
Filing
240
ORDER denying without prejudice plaintiff's 183 Motion for Class Certification. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 10/21/11. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kaj)
|
|
Filing
230
ORDER granting in part and denying in part defendants' Motions to Dismiss 165 166 ; Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted as to the following claims, which are dismissed with prejudice: (1) Plaintiff's claims under 15 U.S.C. 67;§ 1692b and 1692g; (2) Plaintiff's claim that Collins violated the FDCPA and Rosenthal Act by failing to be meaningfully involved in the collection of debts; (3) Plaintiff's claims against Nelson & Kennard for violation of Californi a Business and Professions Code section 17200 and negligence, to the extent that they are based on Nelson & Kennard's filing of the state court complaint; and (4) Plaintiff's invasion of privacy claim. As to their remainder, Defendants' motions are denied. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 7/26/11. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kaj)
|
|
Filing
156
ORDER (1) granting 141 Ex Parte Motion to Strike Erin Towns's Deposition Testimony and (2) granting 125 Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint: the scheduling order is modified accordingly: Plaintiff shall file his third amended co mplaint within 7 days of the date that this Order is electronically docketed. Within 7 days of the date Plaintiff files his amended complaint, the parties shall submit to Judge Stormes a joint motion to extend the pretrial dates to accommodate a limited reopening of discovery to investigate Plaintiff's new allegations. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 11/22/10. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lmt)
|
|
Filing
134
ORDER Overruling 121 Objection filed by Collins Financial Services, Inc., Nelson & Kennard: the Court refers this matter to Judge Stormes so that she can award attorneys' fees incurred in connection with Plaintiff's response. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 10/18/10.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lmt)
|
|
Filing
120
ORDER regarding 106 Motion for Attorney Fees and 119 Motion to Supplement: Court, in its discretion, finds it appropriate to award Tourgeman $13,278.00 of all the attorney's fees requeste. Accordingly, no later than 9/1010, Defendants s hall tender full payment of a total of $13,278.00 to Plaintiff's counsel in attorney's fees associated with the Motion to Compel and the filing of Objections. Failure to comply with this order will result in the imposition of additional sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 8/26/10. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lmt)
|
|
Filing
118
ORDER Overruling Defendants' 107 108 Objections: Given that Defendants' objections are without merit, they are overruled. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 8/3/10.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service; notice sent regarding mandatory ECF registration)(lmt)
|
|
Filing
90
ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's 81 Rule 56(f) Motion, and Denying Defendants' 71 , 76 Motions for Summary Judgment: Plaintiff's Rule 56(f) motion is denied to the extent it seeks a continuance of summary jud gment on whether he paid his debt in full. It is, however, granted in part as to the remainder of Defendants' motions for summary judgment. Defendants' motions for summary judgment are denied with prejudice in part as to question of whether Plaintiff paid his debt in full. Those motions are denied without prejudice in part as to their remainder. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 11/23/09. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mkz) (jrl).
|
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 Southern 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.
