Tillman v. Avid Acceptance, LLC
1:25-cv-07137
N.D. Ill.Sep 19, 2025Background
- Tillman entered a September 2018 financing agreement with Avid to buy a vehicle.
- After a bankruptcy dismissal in March 2020, the vehicle became inoperable and was surrendered.
- Avid repossessed and sold the vehicle in August 2020, claiming an $8,657.50 deficiency.
- In December 2020, Credit Karma notified Tillman that Avid reported derogatory credit remarks.
- Tillman disputes the reporting on January 3, 2023, sending formal disputes to Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion; Avid advised disputing with CRAs directly.
- Tillman filed suit on June 26, 2025 alleging FCRA and FDCPA violations; the court granted in part and denied in part the Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FCRA timeliness | Tillman alleges timely reporting violation under §1681s-2(b). | Avid argues untimeliness under §1681p, but facts insufficient at pleading stage. | FCRA claim may proceed; timeliness not yet established on the pleadings. |
| FDCPA status of Avid | Avid is a debt collector under the FDCPA. | Avid is a creditor, not a debt collector, as it originates and collects its own loan. | FDCPA claim dismissed; Avid is not a debt collector for purposes of the statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (S. Ct. 2007) (pleading Rule 8 requires plausible claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (S. Ct. 2009) (requires plausible, not just possible, claims)
- Gunn v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 968 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2020) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard; plausibility required)
- Purcell v. Bank of Am., 659 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2011) (no private right of action under §1681s-2(a))
- Schlaf v. Safeguard Prop., LLC, 899 F.3d 459 (7th Cir. 2018) (FDCPA applicability to debt collectors)
- Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 582 U.S. 79 (U.S. 2017) (debt collection activities by third-party collectors)
- Aubert v. Am. Gen. Fin., Inc., 137 F.3d 976 (7th Cir. 1998) (creditors are not FDCPA debt collectors when primarily collecting their own debt)
- Hyson USA, Inc. v. Hyson 2U, Ltd., 821 F.3d 935 (7th Cir. 2016) (pleading standards under statute-based claims)
- Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2015) (pro se pleadings and statutory claims considerations)