Edwards v. One
This text of 46 F. App'x 560 (Edwards v. One) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Paul D.S. Edwards appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice his claim under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691-1691f.1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Capital One did not violate ECOA or its implementing regulation by placing ECOA’s required language on page 3 of the letter it sent Edwards regarding his application for a credit card. See 12 C.F.R. § 202.9(b)(1) & app. C; see also Fed. Reserve Bd. Official Staff Commentary, 50 Fed.Reg. 48018 (Nov. 20, 1985).
Edwards’ remaining contentions lack merit.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by . Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
46 F. App'x 560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-one-ca9-2002.