Nelson v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc.
4:20-cv-04018-SOH
| W.D. Ark. | Apr 22, 2020Background:
- Pro se plaintiffs Alisa Nelson and Stacy Jackson filed a complaint on February 25, 2020 alleging Santander Consumer USA violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) related to a 2013 Chevy Camaro purchase.
- Stacy Jackson executed the relevant auto-loan contract in September 2016; plaintiffs allege Santander failed to disclose loan terms at that time.
- Santander moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) on April 6, 2020, arguing the TILA claim is time-barred.
- The magistrate judge found TILA damages claims are subject to a one-year statute of limitations that begins at consummation/when credit is extended.
- Plaintiffs filed a response but did not assert any tolling or other basis to avoid the one-year limitation; the magistrate recommended dismissal as time-barred.
- The magistrate also recommended denial of plaintiffs’ other pending motions (e.g., motion for order of protection / to stop GPS tracking).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of TILA damages claim | Jackson alleges TILA disclosure violation from Sept 2016 loan; no tolling or exception asserted | Claim barred by TILA’s one-year statute (begins at consummation/when credit is extended) | Court: Claim time-barred; dismissal recommended under Rule 12(b)(6) |
| Relief on pending ancillary motions (e.g., protection/GPS) | Plaintiffs seek injunctive/other relief (order of protection; stop GPS/starter interruptions) | Such motions are moot/should be denied in light of recommended dismissal | Court: Recommended denying pending motions consistent with dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Dryden v. Lou Budke’s Arrow Fin. Co., 630 F.2d 641 (8th Cir. 1980) (TILA one-year limitations period begins when credit is extended through consummation)
- Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356 (8th Cir. 1990) (objections to magistrate judge’s report must be timely and specific to trigger de novo review)