U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1996

Morgovsky v. Cresswell, Cake & Echeguren

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided August 5, 1996

92 F.3d 1193; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 28160; 1996 WL 441682 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Opinion

92 F.3d 1193

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Naum MORGOVSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CRESSWELL, CAKE & ECHEGUREN, a corporation; Julia Sherman
Macdermott, individually and as an employee of Cresswell,
Cake & Echeguren; TRW, a corporation; Creditors'
Collection Service of San Francisco, a corporation dba
Premium Collection Service; Mark Love, individually and as
President of Premium Collection Service, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-16094.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 29, 1996.*
Decided Aug. 5, 1996.

Before: HUG, Chief Judge; SCHROEDER and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

Naum Morgovsky appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his complaint, alleging a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1681t ("FCRA"), for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal of Morgovsky's complaint, Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 369 (9th Cir. 1990), and we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

AFFIRMED.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.