Gorman

Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP

Good Law

370 F. Supp. 2d 1005·2005 WL 1138649·2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14049

United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 4, 2005C 04-04507JWCalifornia3,284 words

Opinion

Ware, J.

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

I. INTRODUCTION

John Gorman (“Gorman” or “Plaintiff’) filed a Complaint against MBNA and MBNA’s attorney, Wolpoff & Abramson, alleging libel and violations of various state and federal fair credit reporting and debt collection statutes. MBNA and Wol-poff & Abramson (collectively “Defendants”) each filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. Plaintiff failed to file an Opposition, and instead filed a First Amended Complaint. The Court dismissed Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, but has granted a Motion for Reconsideration because, technically, the First Amended Complaint rendered moot Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. Defendants have each filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. Based on all papers filed to date and the hearing conducted on April 25, 2005, the Court grants Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.

II. BACKGROUND

Gorman’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges the following facts. Gor-man is an attorney and a former holder of a MBNA Visa credit card. (FAC ¶ 4.) “In or about 2003,” Gorman “timely” gave notice that he disputed the legitimacy of “certain charges” that were posted to his account. (FAC ¶¶ 7, 8.) Upon receiving the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.