Morgovsky v. Cresswell, Cake & Echeguren

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NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 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…