Legal Opinion
Woolfolk v. Van Ru Credit Corp.
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided October 2, 1990No. Civ. N 88-268 (EBB)PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ELLEN B. BURNS, Chief Judge.
Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment as to liability, on the basis that there is no dispute as to the material facts which establish the defendant has violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”). For the reasons set forth below, the plaintiffs’ motion is granted.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The defendant, Van Ru Credit Corporation, is a Connecticut corporation with a place of business in Chicago, Illinois. The…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Diane Jeter v. Credit Bureau, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1985
- Ken Baker v. G. C. Services CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
- James A. Swanson, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Southern Oregon Credit Service, Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Mace v. Van Ru Credit Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1997
- Ellis v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLPDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 2010
- Johnson v. NCB Collection ServicesDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1992
- Lerner v. ForsterDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2003
- Raimondi v. McAllister & Associates, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1999
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.