Terrazas v. Globe Acceptance, Inc.
2:21-cv-01018-KG-GBW
| D.N.M. | Aug 23, 2022Background:
- Pro se plaintiff Victoria Fawn Terrazas sued Globe Acceptance, Inc., alleging wrongful repossession and sale of her vehicle, forced placement of insurance, credit harm, and mental distress.
- She alleges Globe employees (notably manager Beth Dieter and an employee Nicole) gave inconsistent statements about payment due‑date change policies between 2015–2017.
- After repossession and an auction sale, Terrazas alleges sale proceeds were not applied to her loan and she remained harmed; she seeks expungement of the loan from her credit report and $100,000 in damages.
- Globe removed the state court action to federal court on diversity grounds and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), alternatively seeking a more definite statement.
- Terrazas asserted claims for violation of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act (UPA) and professional malpractice; the Court found subject‑matter jurisdiction but dismissed the complaint for failure to state a plausible claim, granting leave to amend within 30 days.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of UPA claim | Terrazas: inconsistent employee statements, forced insurance, and sale practices amount to unfair/deceptive trade practices | Globe: allegations do not show a knowing false or misleading statement or conduct covered by the UPA | Dismissed — plaintiff failed to allege a false or knowingly misleading representation sufficient under the UPA |
| Professional malpractice claim | Terrazas: Globe (and manager Dieter) committed professional negligence by terminating the loan and causing harm | Globe: malpractice requires an individual professional defendant and allegations of duty/breach causing harm | Dismissed — no individual professional defendant and no pleaded duty/breach supporting malpractice |
| Requirement to attach state procedural documents (NMRA 1‑009(I)) | (Plaintiff did not attach certain documents) | Globe argued dismissal for failure to attach required state documents | Rejected as basis for dismissal — state procedural attachment rule does not apply after removal to federal court |
| Motion for more definite statement / amendment | Terrazas sought opportunity to make a more definite statement and to amend | Globe alternatively sought a more definite statement if dismissal denied | Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice but granted leave to amend (30 days); Globe may renew motions after an amended complaint |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (clarifies pleading standards and inference requirement)
- Santa Fe Alliance for Pub. Health & Safety v. City of Santa Fe, 993 F.3d 802 (explains Rule 12(b)(6) standard in the Tenth Circuit)
- Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (pro se pleadings are construed liberally but court need not act as advocate)
- Reynoldson v. Shillinger, 907 F.2d 124 (pro se plaintiffs should be given leave to amend if claim possibly curable)
- Guidance Endodontics LLC v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., 728 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (discusses that UPA examples are nonexhaustive and pleading requirements)
- Los Lobos Renewable Power, LLC v. Americulture, Inc., 885 F.3d 659 (federal courts apply federal procedural law after removal)