Sterling v. Ourisman Chevrolet of Bowie Inc., 943 F. Supp. 2d 577

Plaintiff Sterling visited Ourisman Chevrolet to trade her Trailblazer and test drove a Traverse, meeting Gilinsky, Hylton, and Taliaferro.
Hylton advised required documents (bank statements, Schedule C) and indicated higher price for the Traverse; she was offered an Equinox at the quoted amount but later faced higher monthly payments.
After signing a Vehicle Sales Contract and Retail Installment Sale Contract for the Equinox, financing ultimately could not be secured and the vehicle was returned.
Sterling alleges misrepresentations and improper conduct, including discussing financing in public, improper IRS form 4506-T request, and promises to return deposits, which were not honored.
Plaintiff also asserts various tort and statutory claims arising from the dealership’s negotiation and attempted financing, including alleged misrepresentations about financing and deposits, and resultant damages such as lost warranties and late fees.
The court granted in part and denied in part the dealership’s 12(b)(6) motion, dismissing several counts while allowing others (notably fraud and certain FCRA/MCPA claims) to proceed and setting scheduling and conference procedures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
FDCPA viability	Sterling alleges defendants are debt collectors violating FDCPA sections 1692d/e(2)/e(10)/f.	Dealerships are not debt collectors and thus not subject to FDCPA liability.	Count I dismissed; defendants not debt collectors under FDCPA.
RICO viability	Sterling pleads enterprise, pattern of racketeering, and unlawful debt collection.	No interstate commerce, pattern, or unlawful debt proven; RICO claims fail.	Count II dismissed; no RICO claim stated.
ECOA applicability	Dealer acted as creditor-seller and violated ECOA notice requirements.	Dealer was an arranger/referrer, not a creditor; ECOA notice not triggered.	Count V dismissed; not a creditor for ECOA purposes.
FCRA claim viability	Defendants failed to provide adverse-action disclosures and improperly obtained credit report.	There was a legitimate financing context; disclosures at issue were not explicitly tied to a denial based on a report.	Count IV survives; FCRA claim plausible as pleaded (disclosures and adverse-action notice).
Fraud claim sufficiency	Defendants misrepresented financing terms and finality of sale, intending to defraud.	Standard pleading requirements not met or misstatements not established.	Count IX survives; fraud pleaded with particularity under Rule 9(b).

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (heightened plausibility standard; threadbare recitals blocked)
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility requirement for pleading fair notice)
Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1985) (clarifies RICO pleading standard)
H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1989) (continuity/relationship requirements for pattern in RICO)
Spaulding v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 714 F.3d 769 (4th Cir. 2013) (RICO continuity/relatedness framework; fraud-related pleading)
Mount Vernon Props., LLC v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 170 Md.App. 457 (Md. Ct. App. 2006) (implied covenant/fiduciary duty in contract context)
Buxton v. Buxton, 363 Md. 634 (Md. 2001) (fiduciary duty and confidential relationship considerations in Maryland)