Page 1 of 1

Armstrong v. The Cadle Co.

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 10:40 pm
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€