Armstrong v. The Cadle Co.

Post Reply
David A. Szwak
Posts: 1974
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:19 pm

Armstrong v. The Cadle Co.

Post by David A. Szwak »

Armstrong v. The Cadle Co.,
239 F.R.D. 688, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 455, S.D.Fla., January 18, 2007 (No. 05-60359CIV.)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE FINAL JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 60(b)(3) BASED UPON PERJURY OF PLAINTIFF


COHN, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant's Motion to Vacate Final Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3) Based Upon Perjury of Plaintiff [DE 44]. The Court has carefully considered the Motion, Plaintiff's Response [DE 47] and Defendant's Reply [DE 49], and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.



I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action on March 10, 2005 alleging that Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPAâ€
David Szwak
Chairman, Consumer Protection Section, Louisiana State Bar Association
Bodenheimer, Jones & Szwak
509 Market Street, 7th Floor
Mid South Tower
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101
318-221-6444
Fax 318-221-6555
Post Reply

Return to “Cadle Co., Inc.”