Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Hawkins v. Citicorp Credit Services, Inc., 09-2320 (2010)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-2320 Visitors: 25
Filed: Dec. 21, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2320 WILLIAM A. HAWKINS, by his next friend, Ida Hawkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITICORP CREDIT SERVICES, INCORPORATED (USA); MARGOLIS, PRITZKER, EPSTEIN & BLATT, PA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:09-cv-01122-JFM) Submitted: November 19, 201
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2320 WILLIAM A. HAWKINS, by his next friend, Ida Hawkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITICORP CREDIT SERVICES, INCORPORATED (USA); MARGOLIS, PRITZKER, EPSTEIN & BLATT, PA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:09-cv-01122-JFM) Submitted: November 19, 2010 Decided: December 21, 2010 Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jason Ostendorf, LAW OFFICE OF JASON OSTENDORF, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Julia B. Strickland, Marcos D. Sasso, STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN, LLP, Los Angeles, California; J. Preston Turner, Baltimore, Maryland; Jeffrey N. Pritzker, Randolph Baker, MARGOLIS, PRITZKER, EPSTEIN & BLATT, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: William A. Hawkins appeals the district court’s order dismissing, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), his civil action asserting claims under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as well as the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hawkins v. Citicorp Credit Services, Inc., No. 1:09-cv- 01122-JFM (D. Md. filed Oct. 23, 2009 & entered Oct. 26, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer