OPINION
Today we consider an appeal by William P. Schlenk from the district court’s order granting Ford Motor Credit Company’s (“FMCC”) motion to dismiss. The district court granted FMCC’s motion to dismiss Schlenk’s claims under the Consumer Leasing Act and the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act. The district court also dismissed a deceptive advertising claim and, thereby, tеrminated the case.
For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Statement of Facts
Schlenk entered into a vehicle lease agreement with Bill Collins Ford, Inc. A lease agreement, like a purchase agreement, is negotiable and subject to statutory regulation, as we shall later discuss. Here, Schlenk negotiаted a lease for a new truck having a total value of $22,279. The dealer assigned the lease to FMCC. In order to calculate Schlenk’s monthly payments, FMCC subtrаcted the value of the vehicle Schlenk traded and the agreed upon residual value of the truck from the total price, leaving an amount of $3249.70. FMCC thеn added the rent charge of $3562.22, for a total of $6811.92. To calculate the monthly payment, FMCC divided $6811.92 by 24, the number of months of the two-year lease term. After sales tax, the monthly lease payments for Schlenk’s vehicle amounted to $300.86.
At issue in this case is a $530 administrative fee that is included in the $3562.22 rent charge. The administrative fee is a type of handling fee that FMCC charges to process the lease. FMCC calculates the rent charge by taking l/9th of 1% of the vehicle’s net capitаlized cost multiplied by the term of the lease. FMCC collects the fee on a pro rata basis each month. This case does not involve the amount of the fee or the fact that FMCC charged Schlenk an administrative fee. This dispute involves what level of itemization FMCC must disclose by law in regards to the administrative fеes and rent charge.
B. Procedural History
Schlenk initiated a class action complaint in the United States District Court, Western District of Kentucky, seeking
FMCC moved to dismiss' the complаint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court granted FMCC’s motion to dismiss the CLA claims and the KCPA failure to disclose claim but retained the KCPA deceрtive advertising claim. The district court later concluded the deceptive advertising prong was premised on the same statutory violations previously dismissed. The district court concluded that both of Schlenk’s causes of action turned on FMCC’s compliance, or lack of compliance, with Regulation M. Having decided that FMCC met the disclosure requirements of Regulation M, the district court terminated the case. Schlenk filed a timely appeal.
II. JURISDICTION
The district court had jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as Schlenk filed a claim arising under a federal statute, CLA, 15 U.S.C. § 1667, et seq. The district court had supplemental jurisdiction of Schlenk’s stаte law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. This court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a claim pursuant to Fedеral Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
See United Food & Commercial Workers Int’l Union Local 911 v. United Food & Commercial Workers Int’l Union,
B. Federal Statutes Do Not Require an Itemization of the Rent Charge.
Schlenk denies that this case turns on whethеr the federal statutes require itemization of the rent charge. Schlenk wants the court to decide the case based on “whether items which are requirеd to be disclosed as part of the capitalized cost of a lease can be added to the rent charge to avoid the CLA’s disclosure requirеment.” (Final Reply Br. of Appellants at 2). Appellant’s framing of the issue begs the question. If we were to agree with this interpretation of the issue, we would first have tо assume that the statutes require disclosure of the administrative fee separate from including it under the rent charge. Such an assumption necessarily decides the case. We view the issue as whether the CLA and Regulation M require FMCC to disclose the administrative fees to the consumer by itemizing the fees separаte from the rent charge.
On the face of the statute, the CLA does not mandate any disclosure of the administrative fee or itemization of the rent charge. Under section 1667a Consumer Lease Disclosures, the statute lists information that the lessor should provide to the lessee “in a clear and conspicuous manner.” 15 U.S.C. § 1667a. The list of required disclosures does not include administrative fees or the rent charge. We turn to Regulation M to find support for
To support his claim, Schlenk cites 12 C.F.R. § 213.4(0(10). Section 213.4(0(10) requires “[a]n itemization of any other charges that are part of the periodic payment.” We do not agree with Appellant that the rent charge falls under the heading “other charges” and, thus, requires itemization. The term rent charge is specifically mentioned earlier in the regulation in section 213.4(f)(6). We agree with the district court’s assertion that “[t]he word ‘other’ indicates that the itemization mandated by 12 C.F.R. § 213.4(f)(10) only applies to charges that wеre not specifically discussed earlier in the regulation.” Schlenk v. Ford Motor Credit Co., No. 3:99-CV0725-H (W.D.Ky. Aug. 7, 2000). Therefore, neither the CLA nor Regulation M requires FMCC to disclose the administrative fees and itemize the rent charge.
Schlenk argues further that without such an itemization of the rent charge, financing companies would have free reign to concеal other fees under the heading rent charge, and, thus, deceive consumers by charging higher amounts. We do not agree with such a prediction. The statutes require financing companies to disclose the amount of the rent charge to potential lessees. Such disclosure allows consumers to calсulate monthly payments prior to signing a lease. Armed with this knowledge, consumers can negotiate the rent charge to lower overall monthly payments or simply comparison shop for a better lease. Either way, an itemization of the rent charge does not necessarily affect the lessee’s ability to receive a fair deal.
C. State Law Claims Were Correctly Dismissed.
Appellant brings state claims under the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act (“KCPA”), K.R.S. 367.170, et seq. The KCPA states that “[u]nfair, false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are' hereby declared unlawful.” K.R.S. § 367.170. Section 367.220(1) requires “ascertainablе loss of money or property, real or personal” for actions brought under KCPA violations. Here Schlenk has failed to show any loss suffered as a result of FMCC not itemizing the rent charge. After concluding that the FMCC’s disclosures were sufficient under the statutory requirements, we fail to see any “deceptive acts or рractices” triggering the KCPA. We agree with the district court’s dismissal of the state law claims.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s order to dismiss all of the Appellant’s causes of action.