Brooks

Brooks v. Bank of America, NA

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaOctober 25, 20223:20-cv-01348California2,153 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WILLIAM NORMAN BROOKS, III, Case No.: 3:20-cv-1348-RSH-BLM

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

v. RECONSIDERATION

BANK OF AMERICA, NA, [ECF No. 75] Defendant. 16 Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s July 26, 2022, Order [ECF No. 72] declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims of absent class members. Plaintiff contends that the Court erred because it did not also dismiss Plaintiff’s individual state law claims. The Motion is fully briefed and suitable for submission without oral argument. For the following reasons, the Motion is denied. I. Background In the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Plaintiff William Norman Brooks, III, alleges that Defendant Bank of America, NA (“BofA”), harmed his credit by wrongfully reporting to consumer credit reporting agencies that Brooks had filed for bankruptcy and that his BofA…

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.