Ames v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al
| Patrick Ames |
| T-Mobile USA, Inc. and Does 1 through 10 |
| 3:2017cv01666 |
| August 18, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| San Diego |
| M. James Lorenz |
| Andrew G. Schopler |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 |
| 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
24
ORDER Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 20 ]. The Court grants in part and denies in part T-Mobile's motion to dismiss. The Court grants leave to amend the operative complaint. If Plaintiff chooses to file a third amended complaint, he must do so within twenty-one (21) day of the entry of this order. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 1/30/2019. (lrf)
|
|
Filing
14
ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant's Motion [Doc. 11 ] to Dismiss. The Court grants in part and denies in part T-Mobile's motion to dismiss as follows: Plaintiff's RFDCPA claim is dismissed with prejudice; Plaintiff& #039;s CLRA claim is dismissed without prejudice; Plaintiff's invasion of privacy claim is dismissed without prejudice; all other claims may proceed. If Plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint, he must do so within twenty-one days of the entry of this order. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 7/13/2018. (lrf)
|
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.
