Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
Dissent to Order by
Chief Judge KOZINSKI;
Dissent to Order by Judge GOULD; Opinion by Judge CLIFTON; Dissent by Judge BEA.
ORDER
This court’s opinion, filed April 30, 2009, is amended by adding additional language to footnote 2 (565 F.3d at 1114). The existing text in footnote 2 will become the first paragraph of the footnote and the new language follows, such that the entire footnote reads:
In this appeal of a summary judgment, PCA and Experian argued only that § 1681b(a)(3)(A) authorized PCA to obtain Pintos’s credit report. Thus, we need not determine whether PCA had a permissible purpose under…
2Cited by2,034 opinions
- Rearden LLC v. Rearden Commerce, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- Ervine v. Warden, San Quentin State PrisonDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2016
- Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'NCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
- Goodman v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police DepartmentDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2013
2,029 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.