Frederick v. Pinnacle Financial Services et al
| Ezekiel Frederick |
| Pinnacle Financial Services and Capital One Bank USA NA |
| 1:2014cv05460 |
| July 21, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Ronnie Abrams |
| Consumer Credit |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1681 |
| None |
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
427
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re: 334 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC, Tina Vincelli, 342 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Capital One Bank USA NA, 328 MOTION for Summary Ju dgment filed by Anderson Financial Network Inc., 349 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by I C System Inc., 355 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Midland Credit Management, Inc. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS summary judgment to all Defendants and DENIES summary judgment to the Plaintiff. The Court also DENIES Plaintiffs motion to strike or preclude. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the case and enter judgment. A cop y of this Order will be mailed to the prose Plaintiff by Chambers. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 3/27/2018) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (mml)
|
|
Filing
316
ORDER: Plaintiff's April 4 Motion for review and vacatur of the Magistrate Judge's March 28 Order is DENIED. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 6/19/2017) (mro)
|
|
Filing
153
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 109 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 117 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 121 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 121 Motion for Certificate of Appealability; denying 137 Motion to Amend/Correct. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion to amend the judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motions are DENIED. This resolves Dkt. Nos. 108, 109, 117, 121, and 137. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/8/2015) (spo)
|
|
Filing
146
ORDER. Plaintiff has failed to make the requisite showing and does not allege in his motions that Defendants' affirmative defenses will prejudice him in any way. As a result, Plaintiff's motions to strike are denied. This resolves Dkt. Nos. 131, 132, and 133. So ordered. Denying 131 Motion to Strike; Denying 132 Motion to Strike; Denying 133 Motion to Strike. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 11/11/2015) (rjm)
|
|
Filing
130
ORDER denying 120 Motion TO JOIN JOHN AND JANE DOE DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO RULE 20(a). Here, Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to substitute named CEOs and attorneys for John and Jane Doe CEOs and attorneys. In its September 17, 2015 Memoran dum and Order, the Court dismissed the claims against the CEOs and attorneys initially named in the Second Amended Complaint (David Ginzburg, Tina Vincelli, Ronald Greene, and Charlotte Zehnder) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). S ee Dkt. No. 102 at 10, 12, 22. The allegations against the remaining John and Jane Doe CEOs and attorneys in the Second Amended Complaint are identical to the claims already dismissed by the Court. See Sec. Am. Comp. at 17-19, 29, 41-43. For this rea son, it would be futile to allow amendment of the complaint to substitute names for the John and Jane Doe Defendants because "the proposed new claim[s] cannot withstand a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim." Milanese, 244 F.3d at 110. For these reasons, Plaintiffs motion is denied. This resolves Dkt. No. 120. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 10/30/2015) (kko)
|
|
Filing
118
ORDER: Plaintiff's claims against J. Brandon Black are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Furthermore, Plaintiff's claims against Consolidated Edison are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The Clerk of the Court is ordered to issue summons as to Defendants Verizon Wireless and Equifax Inc., and Plaintiff is ordered to serve those Defendants on or before December 18, 2015. J. Brandon Black and Consolidated Edison terminated. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 10/13/2015) (tn) Modified on 10/13/2015 (tn).
|
|
Filing
102
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 25 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 27 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 32 Motion to Dismiss; denying 33 Motion for Judgment on the Pl eadings; denying 34 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting in part and denying in part 60 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 63 Motion to Dismiss; granting 65 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 68 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 81 Motion to Dismiss; granting 86 Motion to Dismiss; granting 93 Motion to Dismiss. For the foregoing reasons, Capital One's motion to dismiss is DENIED as to Plainti ff's FCRA and NYFDCP A claims and GRANTED as to all other claims, which are dismissed with prejudice; AFNI's motion to dismiss is DENIED as to Plaintiffs FCRA and NYFDCPA claims and GRANTED as to all other claims, which are dismissed wi th prejudice; Diversified's motion to dismiss is DENIED as to Plaintiffs NYFDCPA claim and GRANTED as to all other claims, which are dismissed with prejudice; Midland's motion to dismiss is DENIED as to Plaintiff's FCRA and NYFDC P A claims and GRANTED as to all other claims, which are dismissed with prejudice; Pinnacle's motion to dismiss is DENIED as to Plaintiff's FCRA and NYFDCPA claims and GRANTED as to all other claims, which are dismissed with prejudice wi th the exception of the FDCPA claim which Pinnacle did not move to dismiss; Experian's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and all claims against it are dismissed with prejudice; TransUnion's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and all claims against it are dismissed with prejudice; ICS's motion to dismiss is DENIED as to Plaintiff's FCRA and NYFDCPA claims and GRANTED as to all other claims which are dismissed with prejudice; FICO's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and all claims against it are dismissed with prejudice; Tina Vincelli's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and all claims against her are dismissed, with the exception of the FDCPA claim which Ms. Vincelli did not move to dismiss; David Ginzburg' s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and all claims against him are dismissed with prejudice, Ronald Greene's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and all claims against him are dismissed with prejudice; and Charlotte Zehnder's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and all claims against her are dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiff's cross-motions are DENIED. Thus, the following claims and Defendants remain in the case: the FDCPA claims against Pinnacle and Ms. Vincelli; the NYFDCPA claims against Capi tal One, Pinnacle, AFNI, Diversified, Midland, and ICS; and the FCRA claims against Capital One, Pinnacle, AFNI, Midland, and ICS. The following Defendants did not move to dismiss: Verizon Wireless, Consolidated Edison, Equifax Inc., and J. Brandon Black. This resolves Dkt. Nos. 25, 27, 32, 33, 34, 60, 63, 65, 68, 81, 86, and 93. Party David Ginzburg (Attorneys), Ronald Greene, Trans-Union LLC, Charlotte Zehnder, Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and Fair Isaac Corporation terminated. (As further set forth in this Order) (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 9/17/2015) (kl) Modified on 9/18/2015 (kl).
|
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 New York 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.
