From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Acosta v. Campbell

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
Dec 22, 2006
Case No. 6:04-cv-761-Orl-28DAB (M.D. Fla. Dec. 22, 2006)

Summary

In Acosta, plaintiff asserted a 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8) claim against the defendants for failing to communicate to the credit reporting agencies that his debt was disputed.

Summary of this case from Daniel v. Asset Acceptance L.L.C

Opinion

Case No. 6:04-cv-761-Orl-28DAB.

December 22, 2006


ORDER


This case is before the Court on the Joint Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 175-1) filed June 16, 2006. The United States Magistrate Judge has submitted a report recommending that the motion for summary judgment be granted.

After an independent de novo review of the record in this matter, and consideration of Plaintiff's Objections to the Report and Recommendation as well as Defendants' Response thereto, the Court agrees entirely with the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Report and Recommendation. Therefore, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Report and Recommendation filed October 12, 2006 (Doc. No. 198) is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and made a part of this Order.

2. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

3. Plaintiff's Motion For Certification and For Leave To File Interlocutory Appeal (Doc. No. 194) is DENIED AS MOOT.

4. Plaintiff's Rule 60(B) Motion For Relief from Order of Dismissal (Doc. No. 193) is DENIED AS MOOT.

5. Plaintiff's Motion For Relief from Order of Dismissal (Doc. No. 195) is DENIED AS MOOT.

6. Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 192) is DENIED AS MOOT.

7. The Order To Show Cause entered December 21, 2006 (Doc. No. 214) is VACATED.

8. Judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendants.

9. The Clerk is directed to close this file.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida.


Summaries of

Acosta v. Campbell

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
Dec 22, 2006
Case No. 6:04-cv-761-Orl-28DAB (M.D. Fla. Dec. 22, 2006)

In Acosta, plaintiff asserted a 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8) claim against the defendants for failing to communicate to the credit reporting agencies that his debt was disputed.

Summary of this case from Daniel v. Asset Acceptance L.L.C
Case details for

Acosta v. Campbell

Case Details

Full title:DAVID ACOSTA, Plaintiff, v. MARIE D. CAMPBELL, GREGG DREILINGER, LAW…

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division

Date published: Dec 22, 2006

Citations

Case No. 6:04-cv-761-Orl-28DAB (M.D. Fla. Dec. 22, 2006)

Citing Cases

Stamper v. Wilson Associates, P.L.L.C.

§ 1692e), or are they enforcing a security interest (and therefore only subject to 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6))?…

Wideman v. Bank of America, N.A.

Foreclosing on a security interest is not generally considered a debt collection activity under the FDCPA.…