Williams v. Southern Oregon Credit Service, Inc.
Plaintiff: Dennis Williams
Defendant: Southern Oregon Credit Service, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2016cv01707
Filed: August 25, 2016
Court: US District Court for the District of Oregon
Office: Medford (1) Office
Presiding Judge: Mark D. Clarke
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
February 16, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 17 ORDER: Magistrate Judge Clarke's Findings and Recommendation 9 is adopted. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 6 is denied. Signed on 2/16/2017 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 Oregon District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Williams v. Southern Oregon Credit Service, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Southern Oregon Credit Service, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Dennis Williams
Represented By: Joshua R. Trigsted
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?