Morgovsky v. Creditor's Collection Service of San Francisco

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NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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 and Irina Morgovsky, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CREDITOR'S COLLECTION SERVICE OF SAN FRANCISCO, dba Premium Collection Service, a Corp.; Mark Love, individually and as President of Premium Collection Service, Defendants-Appellees. No. 95-16127. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 29, 1996. * Decided Aug. 5, 1996. Before: HUG, Chief Judge; SCHROEDER and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Naum and Irina Morgovsky appeal pro se the district court's summary judgment for defendants in their action alleging violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 -1681t ("FCRA") and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 -1692o ("FDCPA"), as well as a state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the grant of summary judgment,…