Campbell v. Credit Bureau System et al, No. 5:2008cv00177 - Document 92 (E.D. Ky. 2012)
Court Description: OPINION & ORDER : Campbell's 90 MOTION for Relief from Final Judgment Order Pursuant to FRCP (60)(b)(6) as to 87 Judgment is DENIED. Signed by Judge Karl S. Forester on 05/22/2012.(DAK)cc: COR,Pro Se Pla (via U.S. Mail)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-177 FREDDY S. CAMPBELL v. PLAINTIFF OPINION & ORDER GLA COLLECTION COMPANY, et al. DEFENDANTS ********** This matter is currently before the Court upon the motion of the plaintiff, Freddy S. Campbell, for relief from final judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On September 9, 2011, this Court held that the defendants, GLA Collection Company, Inc. ( GLA )and Credit Bureau Systems, Inc ( CBSI ), fully complied with their duties under the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692, and granted the defendants motions to dismiss and/or for summary judgment. In the motion currently before the Court, Campbell contends that GLA has not taken steps to remove itself from his credit report. The relief Campbell seeks simply cannot be afforded by Rule 60(b)(6). Rule 60(b) allows a court to relieve a party or its legal representative from a final . . . order for any of the five reasons listed in the rule and, as set out in subsection (b)(6), for any other reason that justifies relief. However, motions for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time. Campbell s motion, filed more than eighteen months after the Opinion & Order and Judgment of September 17, 2009, is untimely. Campbell has not offered any reasons why his motion was not filed sooner. Additionally, Campbell has failed to set forth any grounds which justify reversing this Court s earlier holding that GLA fully complied with its debt collection responsibilities under the law. As a result, Campbell s motion for relief from Final Judgment [DE #90] is hereby DENIED. This May 22, 2012.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
