History
  • No items yet
midpage
178 F. Supp. 3d 272
E.D. Pa.
2016
Read the full case

Background

  • Rivera purchased a 2006 BMW X3 under a Retail Installment Sales Contract (RISC) and later defaulted.
  • Dealer Funded, LLC (DFL) retained repossession firms Consolidated Asset Recovery Systems (CARS) and Collateral Adjustment Corporation (CAC); CAC repossessed Rivera’s vehicle from her residence in Sept. 2015.
  • After Rivera retrieved the vehicle from a lot, she alleged personal property was missing, the car was trashed, and it was damaged by improper towing.
  • Rivera sued CAC, CARS, and DFL asserting FDCPA, UCC and MVSFA, FCEUA/UTPCPL, and negligence claims; CAC moved to dismiss Counts I–III and to strike portions of the prayer for relief.
  • The court: denied CAC’s contention that Rivera had to attach the RISC to plead her claims; dismissed Count I (FDCPA) and Count II (UCC/MVSFA) without prejudice for failure to state a claim, struck portions of the prayer, and allowed 14 days to amend.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether repossession agency is a “debt collector” under the FDCPA and whether Rivera stated an FDCPA claim Rivera alleged CAC violated FDCPA provisions (including §1692d and §1692f(6)) by repossessing and damaging the car CAC argued repossession agencies are not debt collectors for most FDCPA provisions; alternatively, no §1692f(6) violation because Rivera admitted default and CAC had right to possession Court: repossession agencies are subject to §1692f(6) only; Rivera admitted default so no plausible §1692f(6)(A) claim and pleaded no facts supporting (B) or (C); Count I dismissed without prejudice with 14 days to amend
Whether Rivera must attach the RISC to plead her claims Rivera alleged existence, parties, and default of the RISC and stated she could not locate the contract CAC contended the RISC was a necessary writing and the complaint should be dismissed for failure to attach it Court: under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) plaintiff need not attach or verbatim plead the contract if facts give notice; dismissal for failure to attach denied
Whether alleged vehicle damage constitutes a breach of the peace under UCC §9609 (repossession without judicial process) or MVSFA Rivera alleged damage from improper towing constituted a breach of the peace and statutory violations under the UCC/MVSFA CAC argued Rivera failed to allege any conduct at the scene of repossession indicating a breach of the peace (force, trespass, confrontation, law enforcement) Court: breach-of-the-peace analysis focuses on conduct at or near seizure; damage after removal not shown to be a breach under Pennsylvania law; Count II dismissed without prejudice; negligence claim remains available
Whether portions of Rivera’s prayer for relief are recoverable against CAC and should be stricken Rivera sought statutory damages, UCC remedies, UTPCPL/FCEUA relief, attorneys’ fees, and other relief CAC sought to strike unrecoverable or inapplicable remedies (UTPCPL/FCEUA references, FDCPA statutory damages, UCC damages, attorney fees) Court: by agreement struck references to UTPCPL/FCEUA and Section G as to CAC; struck Sections B (FDCPA statutory damages), D (attorney fees), and E (UCC damages) without prejudice and allowed Rivera 14 days to amend

Key Cases Cited

  • Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim beyond mere possibility)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (two-step plausibility/Iqbal/Twombly framework for Rule 12(b)(6))
  • Piper v. Portnoff Law Assocs., Ltd., 396 F.3d 227 (3d Cir. 2005) (repossession businesses fall under §1692f(6) but not the FDCPA generally)
  • Stroh v. Director, OWCP, 810 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1987) (discussing §1692a(6) scope for enforcement-of-security-interests businesses)
  • Chapa v. Traciers & Assocs., 267 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. Ct. App. 2008) (repossession from public street without objection is not a breach of the peace)
  • Jordan v. Citizens & S. Nat’l Bank of S., 298 S.E.2d 213 (S.C. 1982) (breach-of-the-peace focuses on conduct at or near seizure)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Rivera v. Dealer Funding, LLC
Court Name: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Date Published: Apr 15, 2016
Citations: 178 F. Supp. 3d 272; 2016 WL 1535758; 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50743; 89 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 521; CIVIL ACTION No. 15-6590
Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION No. 15-6590
Court Abbreviation: E.D. Pa.
Log In
    Rivera v. Dealer Funding, LLC, 178 F. Supp. 3d 272