Locicero v. INTRUST Bank, N.A. et al, No. 0:2017cv61484 - Document 53 (S.D. Fla. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part 35 Joint Motion to Dismiss 31 Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim. Amended Complaint due by 9/28/2018. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 9/12/2018. See attached document for full details. (ls)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Locicero v. INTRUST Bank, N.A. et al Doc. 53 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE N O.17-61484-CIV-GAYLES FRANCISCA D.LOCICERO,eta1., Plaintiffs, VS. INTRU ST BA N K ,N .A .,etal., Defendants. O R DE R GM N TIN G IN PA RT M O TIO N TO D ISM ISS THIS M ATTER isbeforethe Courton theDefendants'JointM otion to DismissPlaintiffs AmendedComplaint(DE 35j.Plaintiffsputativeclassactioncomplàintarisesfrom anallegedloan generation scheme forfinancing expensivehom eimprovem entproducts,such asairconditioners. . According to theAmended Complaint,DefendantGreensky,LLC (Ir reensky'')arrangesand brokerstheloans,whileDefendantlntnlstBank,N.A.tsilntnzsf'listheactuallender.TheAmended Complaint(çtcomplainf')allegesfîvecausesofaction:(1)violation oftheTnzth in LendingAct (TILA)bylntrust;(2)declaratoryrelief;(3)restitution andtmjustemichment;(4)violationofthe' Florida CreditService Orgnnization Act;and (5)violation ofthe FloridaConsumerCpllection PracticesAct. Defendants'm otion seeksto dismissallclaimspursuantto FederalRuleofCivil Procedure 12(b)(6). Forthereasonssetforth below,Defendants'motion isgranted in partand denied in partandPlaintiffisgranted leaveto replead. Dockets.Justia.com Allegatibnsin theAm ended Com plaintl PlaintW 'sAgreementwlth FluidAir Plaintiffow nsa hom e in Brow azd County,Florida,w here she m aintainsherresidence. On oraboutJuly 24,2016,Plaintiffreceived an tmsolicited telephone callon her cellphone from someoneshebelievedwasasalespersonforFluidAirConcepts(sTluidAir'')concerningaççsales progrnm''tohelp low incom epeoplesaveon energy costs.Accordingto Plaintiff,thecallerfalsely told Plaintiffthatshe could savem oney byupgrading her!ircpnditioning system using aFlorida Powerand Light(FPL)Program. In reality and tmbeknownstto Plaintiffatthetime,no such progrnm 'existed. Plaintiffagreed to m eetthe salesperson. )' OnJuly28,2016,an employeeoragentofFluidAircnm etoPlnintifpshom e.TheFluidAir salesperson çlinspected''Plaintiffs airconditioningunitand represented to PlaintiffthattheFPL Program would providefinancialassistancetoPlaintiffifshechanged outherairconditionerfora new energy efticientunit. TheFluid Airrepresentative falsely told Plaintiffthat,tmdertheFPL Progrnm ,Plaintiffwould haveno out-of-pocketcostswhen,in fact,Fluid Airintendedto create a loan in Plaintiffsnameto ûnancethepurchaseoftheairconditioner.Plaintiffdidnotconsentto the loan. UnderthebeliefthatanFPL Program existed,PlaintiffsignedadoctlmenttitledçtAgreement forChange Outin Service''(lichange OutAgreemenf),which isattached to thecomplaintas lplaintiff sam ended com plaintcontainslengthy allegations aboutGreensky'shom e solicitation and loan generation businessand also containsclassaction allegations.Because none ofthose allegationsare directly relevantto the issues raised by the m otion to dism iss,those allegations are notsetouthere. ExhibitA.zTheChangeOutAgreem entindicatesthattheSEcashvalueofEquipment''is$8,000.00. Itf'urtherstatesthatal1installation and otherchargeshavebeen waived. On July 30,2016,within 48 hoursof signing the Change OutAgreem ent,Fluid A ir replaced Plaintiff s airconditionerullit with a new unit, without obtaining a permit and without complying with applicable code . requirem ents. The Change OutAgreem entdid notcontain therightto cancelclauserequired by FloridaStatutej501.031(2)ortherighttocancelclausesrequiredby 16C.F.R.j429.1.3 TheLoan Agreem ent Severaldaysafterthenew airconditioningtmitwasinstalledatherhome,Plaintiffreceived aletterfrom DefendantGreensky informingPlaintiffofan $8,000.00 loan in hernnme.4 Included withtheletterwasadocumenttitledSçGreenskyInstallmentLoanAgreement''tû&taoanAgreemenf). 2In theirM otion to D ism iss,D efendantà--contend thatPlaintiff also signed another docum entatthattim e,theBorrowerPaym entCertificate,which acknowledged receiptofthe Greensky InstallmentLoan Agreementand which statedthatPlaintiffagreed to belegally bound by thetennsand conditionsoftheGreensky lnstallm entLoan Agreem ent.Defendantsattach a copy oftheBorrowerPaymentCertiscateto theirM otion to Dismissand rely on itjcontentsin supportoftheM otion to Dism iss.TheCotut however,willnotconsidertheBorrowerPayment Certiûcate atthis stage ofthe proceedingsbecause itw as notattached to the com plaint,w asnot referred to in the com plaint,and itisnotclearthatthe contents ofthe docum entare notin dispute.SeeFinancialSecurityAssurance,Inc.v.Stephens,lnc.,500F.3d 1276,1284(11th Cir. 2007)(slordinarily,wedonotconsideranythingbeyondthefaceofthecomplaintanddocuments attached thereto when analyzing am otionto dism iss....' Fhiscourtrecognizesan exception, however,in casesin which aplaintiffrefersto adocumentin itscomplaint,thedocum entis centralto itsclaim ,itscoptentsarenotin dispute,and the defendantattachesthe documentto its motiontodismiss.''(citation omittedl). 3W hile the com plaintalleges these violations, itdoes notcontain causesofaction under eitherthe Florida Statute orthe federalregulations. V he complaintdoesnotclearly setouttherelationship between Fluid Airand Green Sky. H ow ever,PlaintiffallegesthatD efendantG reensky usesm erchants,including Fluid A ir,to finance hom e im provem entproducts,such asairconditioning llnits,through high pressure inhom e solicitations. 3 Theletterand itsenclosuresareattached tothecomplaintasExhibitB and theLoanAgreementis N. also attached separately asExhibitC . Plaintiffneversigned theLoAn Agreem entand did notagree to anyofthetennsandprovisionsoftheLoanAgreement.FluidAirneverdisclosedtheprovisions oftheLoanAgreementtoPlaintiff.DespitethefactthitPlaintiffneversignedoragreedtoenterinto a contractforthe extension ofcreditwith Greensky orIntrust,befendantshave collected or attem pted to collectm oniesfrom Plaintiff. Pursuanttotheterm softheLoanAgreement,DefendantIntrust extendedcredittoPlaintiff in the am ountof$8,000.00. The TILA disclosurein the Loan Agreem ent.lists$8,000.00 asthe llAmountFinanced.''TheLoanAgreementalsostatesthat$8,000.00waspaidtoFluidAir.Plaintiff allegesthatthisrepresentationwasfalsebecauseGreenskyreceivedthe$8,000.00andpaid onlya portion ofthatto Fluid Air.B ecause Greensky keptaportion oftheloan proceeds,Plaintiffalleges thatthe ûsAmountFinanced''setoutin the TILA disclosure contained an undisclosed fee paid to Greensky(tçcreditServiceFee'').TheCreditServiceFeewouldnothavebeenchargedin acash only transaction. A sa result,the Credit Service Fee constitutesan tm disclosed finance charge. Plaintiffallegesthatthe Loan A greem entappearsto contem plate both a çtclosed-end credit transaction''and an Gtopen-end credittransaction.''Therequirem entsforclosed-end and open-end credittransactionsdiffer.An open-endcredittransaction providesform ultiplepurchaseswithin a certain tim e period,i.e.,a creditcard,whereas a closed-end credittransaction involves a single extensionofcredit.TheLoanAgreem entincludesaççshoppingPass''which,accordingtoitsterms, had attributesofacreditcard,including an accotmtnumber,an expiration date,abarcode,and a ç&CVV.Number.''Plaintiffm aintainsthat,asaresultoftheShoppingPass'scredit-cardlikefeamres, 4 IntrustwasrekuiredtocomplywiththeCrçditCardAccountabilityandDisclosureActof2009and ithasnot. Greensky and the CreditService Organization A ct PlaintiffallegesthatGreensky acted asacreditserviceorganization,asthatterm isdefined in Florida's CreditService Organization Act(ç1CSOA''). Specifically,Greensky,in return for m oney,sold,provided,and performedtheprocurementand obtaining ofan extension ofcreditfor Plaintiffasabuyer. However,Greenskyhasnotcomplied with therequirem entsofthe statute. Plaintff'sCausesofAction A ssetoutabove,Plaintiffalleges five causes ofaction.Countlagainstlntrustallegesthat IntrustviolatedTILA by:(1)failingtoprovidea11materialdisclosuresrequiredbyTILA,15U.S.C. j 1601,etseq.,andRegulation Z,12 C.F.R.j226.18,in closed-end credittransactionsand (2) failingto complywiththerequirementsofTILA foropen-end credittransactions.CountI1,against both Defendants,seeksadeclaratoryjudgmentthatGreenskyhasnotcomplied with theFlorida CSOA and thatthe Loan Agreem entwas never consumm ated and,therefore,is tmenforceable. CountIIIisaclaim forrestitm ionandunjustem-ichmentagainstbothDefendants.CountIV alleges aviolationoftheFloridaCSOA,Fla.Stat.j817.7001,etseq.,againstboth Defendants.CotmtV, againstbothDefendants,claim sviolation oftheFloridaConsum erCreditProtectionAct,Fla.Stat. j559.55,etseq.,($TCCPA'').Plaintiffseeksadeclarationthatallextensionsofcreditarrangedby Greenslcy arevoid asam atteroflaw ,statutory dam agesf' rom InstrusttmderTILA,and actualand ptm itive dam agestm derthe CSO A and FCCPA . D efendants have m oved to dism issa11claim s. 5 II. M otion To D ism iss Standard / ThepurposeofamotiontodismissfiledpursuanttoFederallkuleofCivilprocedtlre12(b)(6) isto testthefacialsuffciency ofacom plaint.Therulepermitsdism issalofa complaiptthatfails to stateaclaim upon which reliefcan begranted.Itshouldberead alongsideFederalRuleofCivil Procedure8(a)(2),whichrequiresalçshortandplainstatementoftheclaim showingthatthepleader isentitledtorelief''Although acomplaintchallenged byaRule 12(b)(6)motiontodismissdoes notneed detailed factualallegations,aplaintiffisstillobligated to prokide the ltgrounds''forhis entitlementtorelielland aççformulaicrecitation oftheelementsofacauseofaction willnotdo.'' BellAtlanticCorp.v.Twombly,550U.S.544,555(2007). W hen a complaint is challenged under Rule 12(b)(6),a courtwill presume thatall well-pleadedallegationsaretrueandview thepleadingsin thelightm ostfavorabletotheplaintiff. American UnitedLfeIns.Co.v.M artinez,480F.3d 1043,1066(11thCir.2007).However,once a courttsidentiûespleadingsthat,because they are no m ore than conclusions,arenotentitled tothe , assum ption oftnlth,''itm ustdeterm ine w hetherthe w ell-pled facts çtstate a claim to reliefthatis plausibleon itsface.''Ashcro.ftv.Iqbal,556U.S.662,678(2009).A complaintcanonly survive a12(b)(6)motiontodismissifitcontainsfacmalallegationsthatareGtenoughtoraisearighttorelief abovethespeculativelevel,ontheassumptionthata11the(factual)allegationsinthecomplaintare true.'' Tw om bly,550 U .S.at 555. H ow ever,a w ell-pled com plaintsurvives a m otion to dism iss çtevenifitstrikesasavvyjudgethatactualproofofthesefactsisimprobable,andtthatarecovery isvery rem ote and unlikely.''' Twom bly,550 U .S.at556. 6 111. D iscussion Aspreviously stated,Defendantsseek to dism issPlaintiffsentirecomplaint.Defendants raisetlnreemainreasonsfordismissal:(1)anyfeepaidbyIntrustto Greenskywasnotchargedto Plaintiffand,therefore,wasnotatinancechargerequiredtobedisclosedbyTILA;(2)Plaintiffis subjecttothetennsoftheLoanAgreement,whichincludeaKansaschoice-of-law provision,the application ofwhichrequiresdism issalofthetwoFloridastatutorycausesofaction,theCSOA and FCCPA claims;and(3)Plaintiffscommon 1aw claimsdonotstateclaimsagainsttheDefendants. The Courtw illaddresseach cause ofaction separately. 4. a Plaintlff'sFN-,d Claim AgainstIntrustisDismissedinPart PlaintiffsTILA claim allegesthatlntrustviolated TILA in m ultiple ways. To theextent lntnlstand Plaintiffentered into a closed-end credittransaction,Plaintiffm aintainsthatIntrust violatedTILA by(i)failingtoaccuratelyandproperlydisclosethennnualpercentagerate;(ii)failing toacctlratelyandproperly disclosethefinancecharge;and (iii)failingtoacctlratelyandproperly disclosethenm otmtsnanced. TotheextentthatIntnzstandPlaintiffenteredintoanopen-endcredit transaction,Plaintiffmaintains thatIntrustviolated TILA by (i) failing to comply with the underwriting requirementsofTILA and (ii)failing to provide the required periodic statements required by TILA. Intnzstseeks to dismissPlaintiffsTILA claim arguinj thatthere was no undisclosed feethatitwasrequired to disclosetoPlaintiffandthattheLoan Agreem entwasnotan open-end credittransaction. BecausewhetherIntrustimposed an undisclosed finance charge isa question of fact,it is not appropriate to resolve on a m otion to dism iss. H ow ever,the Loan A greem ent,w hen read asa w hole and in the contextofthe airconditionerptzrchase,isnotan open- 7 end credit transaction. Consequeùtly, Plaintiff's TILA claim related to an open-end credit transaction isdismissed. Plaintt HasAdequatelyPledSheWasChargedan UndisclosedFee PlaintiY scomplaintallegesthattheTILA disclosurestatem entrepresented that$8,000.00 waspaidtoFluidA ir,which wasm ateriallyfalse.Plaintiffallegesthattheloanproceedswerepaid toGreenskyandtherfGreensk'y paidaportion oftheproceedstoFluidAir.Thus,Plaintiffalleges thattheam ountfinancedincludedtheundisclosedCreditServiceFeethatwaspaidtoGreensky for arranging the credit. As a result,the required disclosures inaccurately represented the annual percentage rate on the loan,the amotmtfinanced,and the amountofthe finance charge. The complaintallegesthattheCreditServiceFeewouldnothavebeenchargedin acash-onlytransaction and,thus,itconstimtesan undisclosed financechargein violation ofT1LA.5 In response,lntrustcontendsthatthere w as no violation ofTILA because Plaintiffw asnot charged,directly or indirectly,forany feespaid to Greensky and thatPlaintiffwould have paid STILA defnesa tûfinance charge''as: the sum ofa1lcharges,payable directly orindirectly by the person to whom the creditis extended,and imposed directly orindirectly by the creditorasan incidenttotheextension ofcredit.Thetinance chargedoesnotincludechargesofatypepayable in acom parable cash transaction. 15U.S.C.j 1605(a).RegulationZ givesexnmplesofdifferenttypesofchargesthatconstitute finance charges,including: Chargesim posed on a creditorby anotherperson forpurchasing or accepting a consum er's obligation,ifthe conslzm erisrequired to pay the chargesin cash,as an addition to the obligation,oras a deduction f' rom the proceeds ofthe obligation. 12 C.F.R.j226.4(b)(6). 8 $8,000.00 fortheairconditionerregardlessofwhethershepaidcash orcredit;therefore,itisnota fnancechargethatm ustbedisclosed.Intrustf'urtherarguesthatitisclearfrom PlaintiffsExhibit A,theAgreementforChangeOutSelwice,thatthecash priceoftheairconditionerwas$8,000.00. Thus,therewasno financechargeincurredby Plaintiffbecausethecash priceandthepricepaid by Plaintiffwerethe sam e.lntrustalso relieson thelanguageoftheLoan Agreem entto establishthat Plaintiffdid notdirectly or indirectly pay a finance charge. The Loan Agreementstates GGYour M erchantg roviderpaystransactionfeesasaresultofyolzruseoftheShoppingPassorLoan.Your M erchant/providerisprohibited from slzrcharging you to coverthecostofthesetransaction fees.'' Assetoutabove,however,Plaintiffallegesin hercomplaintthatthe$8,000.00includedan undisclosed tsnance charge.Atthem otion to dism issstagetheCourtmusttaketheallegationsin thecomplaintastrue.SimplybecausetheLoanAgreem entstatesthatFluidAirwasprohibitedfrom surchargingPlaintiffto coveritsfeesdoesnotm ean thatPlaintiffwasnotcharged. Furthennore, theA greem entforChange OutService isnotasclearasIntrustwould have the Cottrtbelieve. The Agreem entforChangeOutSelwicestatesthattheçtcashValueofEquipm ent''is$8,000.00.Value andpricearenotthesnmething.M oreover,a11ofIntnzst'sargumentsrequirefactualfindings,which cannotbem ade atthem otion to dism issstage.Thus,taking thepleadingsinthelightm ostfavorable to Plaintiff,Plaintiffhasadequately alleged thatshe w as charged an undisclosed finance charge in violationofYILA. The Loan Agreem entJF' J. NN otan Open-End CreditTransaction Intrustm aintainsthatthe Loan A greem entw asnotan open-end credittransaction and,thus, Plaintiff's TILA claim s based on the requirem ents for open-end credit transactions m ust be dism issed. Under TILA , an open-end credit plan is one Cçunder w hich the creditor reasonably 9 contemplatesrepeated transactions,which prescribesthe terms ofsuch transactions,and which providesfor4.finance charge which m ay be com puted from tim e to tim e on the outstanding unpaid balance.''15U.S.C.j1602(J ').Intrustargues,withoutcitinganysupport,thattheLoanAgreement contemplated asingletransactiontofinancetheairconditioner.Inresponse,Plaintiffm aintainsthat the Greensky Shopping Passisa creditcard and,as aresult,the Loan Agreem entconstitutesan open-end credittransaction. W hile the Shopping Pass m ay have som e of the attributes of a credit card and the Loan Agreementcontainssomelanguagethatcouldindicateanopen-endcredittransaction,itisclearfrom the face ofthe Loan A greem entthatitw asnotan open-end credittransaction. Reading the Loan Agreementasawhole,itisapparentthatPlaintiffwasapprovedfor$8,000.00increditandreceived thatf'u11$8,000.00astheresultofasingletransactionthattookplaceatapproximatelythesnm etim e thatPlaintiffobtained the credit. Thus,having reached hercreditlim itw ith the singletransaction, no f'urthertransactions could have been contemplated by the parties. As one courtput it:$$In practicaltenns,underanopen end creditplan,thereisno extension ofcreditsimplyby theissuance ofthecard.''Goldmanv.FirstNationalBankofchicago,532F.2d10,18(7thCir.1976).Thatis theoppositeofwhathappenedhere;here,therewasanextension ofcreditsimply withtheissuance of the Shopping Pass. Plaintif? was issued the Shopping Pass at the same time thatthe $8,000.00creditwasextended.Consequently,Plaintiff'sTILA claimsbasedontherequirem entsfor open-endcredittransactionsaredismissedwith prejudice. B. TheM otiontoDismissPlaintW 'sDeclarator.vReliefclaim isDenied Plaintiffs declaratoryjudgmentclaim seeks a declaration thatthe extensionsofcredit arranged by Greensky are void asam atteroflaw . Defendantsm oveto dism issthisclaim on the 10 ground thatitis duplicative ofPlaintiffsFlorida CSOA claim . W hile the claim sare based on alleged violationsofthesnm estatute,Plaintiffisentitled to seek alternative relief. A plaintiffisentitledtopleadinthealternative,ptlrsuanttoFederalRulesofCivilProcedlzre 8(a)and(d).Further,thefederaldeclaratoryreliefstatute,underwhichPlaintiffseeksrelief,permits reliefçiwhetherornotfurtherreliefisorcouldbesought.''28U.S.C.j2201.FederalRuleofCivil Procedtlre57reaftirmsthis,statingGdgtlheexistenceofanotheradequateremedydoesnotpreclude adeclaratoryjudgmentthatisotherwiseappropriate.''W hilePlaintiffmaynotbeabletoobtainboth legaland equitable relief,shem ay plzrsue herclaim forequitablereliefuntilsheprovesentitlem ent tolegalrelief.SeeCoastalWellnessCenter,Inc.v.ProgressiveAmericanInsuranceCo.,2018 W L 1701995,*4(S.D.Fla.April4,2018).Consequently,themotiontodismissPlaintiffsdeclaratory judgmentactionisdenied. C. Plaintt 'sUnjustEnrichmentClaim isDismissedinPart PlaintiffallegesthatDefendantswereunjustly erlrichedwhen theyaccepted andretained chargesforcreditservicesfrom Plaintiff Plaintiffm aintainsthatDefendantswerenotentitled to these chargesby 1aw and thatDefendants should notbepennitted to retain thebeneftsofthese illegalcharges. Defendantsmove to dismissthisclaim . Plaintff' s UnjustEnrichmentClaim AgainstlntrustisDismissed Without Prqudice Intrustmovestodis 'missthetmjustenzichmentclaim againstitontwogrolmds.First,Intrust arguesthatPlaintiffhasnotallegedtheelementsofanunjustendchmentclaim .UnderFloridalaw, aPlaintiffclaiming unjustenrichmentmustallege:1:(1)plaintiffhasconferred abenetiton the defendant,whohasknowledgethereof;(2)defendantvoltmtarily acceptsand retainsthebenefit conferred;and(3)thecircumstancesaresuchthatitwouldbeinequitableforthedefendanttoretain thebenefitwithoutpayingthevaluethereoftotheplaintiffo''H illman Construction Corp.v.Wainer, 636 So.2d 576,577 (F1a.4th DCA 1994).IntrustmaintainsthatPlaintiffhasfailed toallegea benefitshe conferred on Intrust. In fact,IntrustarguesthatPlaintiffreceived the benefit,the air conditioner,and itisinequitableforherto keep itbecauseshehasnotpaid forit.Plaintiffhasnot responded to thisargum entand the complaintdoesnotallege any benefitshe has conferred on Intrust.Thecom plaintallegesthatDefendantscollected,accepted,andretained chargesforcredit selwices. However,there is nothing in the com plaintthatindicates thatPlaintiffactually paid anythingtoIntrust,directly orindirectly.Consequently,Plaintiffhasfailedtoadequatelypleadher unjustenrichmentclaim againstIntrust. Second,IntrustarguesthatPlaintiffcazmotmaintainhezunjustenrichmentclaim becausean expresscontractgovernstheirrelationship. Plaintiffmaintainsthat,tmderFederalRule ofCivil Procedure8(d)(2),sheispermittedtopleadinthealternative.Furthermore,unlikethecasescited by Intnlstinvolving atlexpresscontract,Plaintiffdisputesthevalidity ofthe contractbetween her and Intrust. Consequently,Plaintiff m ay plead in the altem ative. H ow ever,as set out above, Plaintiffhasfailedtoadequatelypleadherclaim.Accordingly,theunjustemichmentclaim against' Intrustisdism issed with leaveto replead. PlaintftnsUnjustEnrichmentClaim AgainstGreensky isAdequatelyPled GreenskyalsoseekstoLismisstheunjustenrichmentclaim againstitbecausePlaintiffhas notalleged theelementsofan tmjustemichmentclaim. Greensky arguesthatPlaintiffhasnot 12 alleged anyfactsshowingthatshehasconfen' ed abenefitupon Greensky.6 Plaintiffrespondsthat thecomplaintallegesthatGreenskywaspaidtheCreditServiceFeeforarrangingthecreditbetween Intrust and Plaintiff and,according to the complaint,thatFee cam e from Plaintiffç%paying or agreeing to pay m oney forcreditsenrices.'' Taking the allegationsin the lightm ostfavorable to Plaintiff,Plaintiffhasadequatelypledanunjustemichmentclaim againstGreensky. D. The CSOA Claim IsD ism issed in Part Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiffs Florida CSOA claim based on a choice of 1aw provision intheLoan Agreem ent,which,ineffect,designatesKansas1aw astheapplicablelaw.lrl the altem ative,Intrustarguesthatitisexemptfrom the Florida CSOA because itis a federally insured bank and Greensky arguesthatitisnotaCreditService Organization undertheCSOA .The Cotu' tneed notaddress whetherK ansaslaw applies to the Loan A greem entas to the CSOA claim because PlaintiffconcedesthatIntrustis exem'ptfrom the Florida CSOA and the choice oflaw provision doesnotapplytoGreensk'y,anon-partytotheLoanAgreem ent.W hilePlaintiffconcedes thatIntnzstis exem ptfrom the Florida CSOA ,PlaintiffarguesthatIntnlst'sliability is derivative pursuantto theFTC HolderRule. Thè Courtwilladdressthe claim sagainstGreensky first. The CSOA Claim AgainstGreensky isAdequately Pled PlaintiffiscorrectthatGreenslty isnotaparty to the Loan Agreem entand,therefore,the choice of1aw provision in theLoan Agreem entwould notapply to aclaim againstGreensky.See Cooperv.M eridian Yachts,Ltd,575F.3d 1151,1169(11th Cir.2009)(generally,achoiceof1aw clauseEsisacontractualrightthatcnnnotordinarilybeinvokedby oragainstapartywhodidnotsign 6Greenskyalsoraisestheissueofwhetheranunjustenrichmentclaim issuitableforclass certitk ation. The Courtw illaddressthis issue if and when itis addressed in a m otion forclass certification. 13 thecontractinwhichtheprovisionappears.'').However,Greenskycontendsthatitisnotacredit serviceorganization asthatterm isdefinedbytheFlorida CSOA and,thus,theFloridaCSOA does notapplyto it. TheFloridaCSOA definesaClcreditserviceorganization''as; anyperson who,with respecttotheextension ofcreditby others,sells,provides,performs, orrepresentsthatheorshecanorwillsell,provide,orperform,in rettfrnforthepaymentof m oney orothervaluableconsideration,any ofthefollowing services: 1.Improvinga buyer'screditrecord,history,orrating; 2.Obtaining an extension ofcreditforabuyer' ,or 3.Providing adviceorassistanceto abuyerwith regardto thesetvicesdescribed in either subparagraph 1.orsubparagraph 2. Fla.Stat.j817.7001(2)(a).Greensky arguesthatitdoesnotofferorprovideanyoftheserdces listed inthestamte.ltfurtherarguesthatitdoesnotrepresentbuyersand doesnotchargebuyersfor servicesin connection with extensionsofcredit;instead,itrepresentsthelenders. Inhercomplaint,PlaintiffallegesthatGlGreenskyactedasacreditserviceorganizationin its actionswith(Plaintif6''and dssold,providedandperformedinreturnforpaymentofmoney'orother valuableconsideration theprocuzementand obtaining an extension ofcreditfor(Plaintiffjasa buyen''gDE 31at!854.Thuà,Plaintiffhaspleda11oftheelementsnecessarytoshow thatGreenslty isa creditserkice organization asdefined bytheCSOA.Atthem otion to dismissstage,theCourt m usttake these allegations as tnze. Plaintifffurtherarguesthatthereisno authorityto supportGreensky'spropositionthatitis only acreditservice organization ifitrepresentsthe buyerand chargesthebuyerforitsservices. The only case in Florida this Courtfound thatintep rets this section ofthe A ctisinapposite. See Dorestin v.Hollm oodImports,lnc.,45 So.3d 819,824 (F1a.4th DCA 2010)(fndingthatacar 14 dealership which assisted itscustom ersin obtainingfinancingwasnotacreditserviceorganization becausethecustom erdid notpay the' dealerafeeorotherconsideration forassistapcein obtaining . thesnancing). W hile Greensky arguesthatPlaintiffdid notpay itafee,Plaintiffscomplaint allegesthat Greensky waspaid afee,which camefrom Plaintiffdirectly orindirectly.Taking the allegations in the light m ost favorable to Plaintiff,Plaintiff has adequately pled that Greensky received afeefrom Plaintiffin return forGreensk'y obtaining an extension ofcrediton behalfof Plaintiff. TheCSOA Claim AgainstIntrustisDismissed WithoutPrejudice Plaintiffconcedesthatlntnzstisa nationalbank and,assuch,isexemptfrom the CSOA. However,PlaintiffmaintainsthatIntrustVsderivativeliabilityforGreensky'sviolationofthe CSOA based ontheterm softheLoanAgreem entapdtheFTC HolderRule.TheLoan Agreem ent containsthefollowinglanguage,asrequiredbytheFTC HolderRule,16C.F.R.j433.2: NOTICES:AN Y HOLDER OF THIS CONSUM ER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO M L CLM M S AN D DEFEN SES W H ICH TH E DEBTOR COU LD A SSERT AG AW ST THE SELLER OF GO OD S O R SERV ICES OBTA INED W ITH TH E PR OCEED S HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AM OUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER. (DE 31-3,T23(allcapitalsinoriginallj.Basedonthislanguage,PlaintiffarguesthatifGreensky is liable under the CSOA,then so is Intnzst. In its reply,Intrustargues thatPlaintiffhas not adequately pled abasisfordirectliability againstGreensky and,therefore,Intnzstcamlotbeheld derivatively 1iable.7 However,assetoutabove,forpurposesofam otion to dismiss,Plaintiffhas 7In supportofthisproposition,onpage 11oftheirreply,Defendantscite:GGseeRenekerv. ErnieHaireFor4 Inc.,2004W L 2737908*9(M .D.Fla.June3,2004)(holdingthatplaintiff's derivativeclaimsassertedagainstthecreditormustbedismis 'sed asamatterof1aw).'' Defendantsagain citetothisççcase''inthenextparagraph- ** 16Latn.8(quotingSchauerv, GeneralMotorsAcceptanceCorp.,819So.2d 809,813(Fla.4thDCA 2002))(holdingthat 15 adequatelypled a claim tmderthe CSOA againstGreensky.In thealtem ative,Intnlstarguesthat Floridacourtshavefound thattheFTC HolderRuleisusuallynotthe basisfora consum erto seek affirmativerelief. In Schauer v. GeneralM otors A cceptance Corp.,a Florida appellate courtexplained the application oftheFTC HolderRule: W hilettgtlheruleisexpresslydesignedtocompelcreditorstoeitherabsorbsellermisconduct costsorseekreimbursem entofthose costsfrom sellersp''Tinkerv.DeM ariaPorscheAudi, Inc.,459So.2d487,492(F1a.3dDCA lg84ltfootnotesomitted),revfpw denied,471So.2d 43 (F1a.1985),itis ordinarily used as a shield,notasa sword forconsllmersto seek affirmativerelief A recognizedexception tothislimitation iswhereaconsumerm aintains anaction againstthecreditorforareturnofm oniespaid on an accotmt.40Fed.Reg.53,505, 53,524(1975)(citedinCrewsv.AltavistaMotors,Inc.,65F.Supp.2d388,390(W .D.Va. 1999)).However,suchreliefGlwillonlybeavailablewhereaseller'sbreachissosubstantial thatacourtispersuadedthatrescissionandrestitutionarejustifidd.''1d. 819So.2c1809,813 (Fla.4thDCA 2002). Basedon thisinterpretation oftheFTC HolderRule, Plaintiffhasnotsux ciently pled a cause ofacticm againstIntnlstforderivative liability tmder the FTC H olderRule. Plaintiff has notpled thatshe is seeking a return ofm oniespaid to lntnlst. ln fact,shehasnotactuallypledthatshehasmadeanypaym entsto Intnzst.Thus,Plaintiffhasfailed to suffcientlyplead aclaim againstIntrustbased on theFlorida CSOA and theFTC HolderRule. Consequently,theclaim againstIntrustisdismissedwithoutprejudice. affrmativereliefisonly properwherethedebtorseeksthereturn ofm oniespaid dueto ç:...a sellers(siclbreach ...sosubstantialthatacourtispersuadedthatrecession (sicqandrestimtion arejustified.''l.''W hileDefendants'citationsindicatethatthisistheholdingofacourt,itisnot. D efendants have cited to a party's m otion papers,nota court's decision. R epresenting m otion papers asa decision ofa courtis,atbest,tm believably sloppy and,atw orst,a violation ofThe Rules Regulating the Florida Barand FederalRule ofCivilProcedure 11. G oing forward,the Courtexpectsthatcotm selw illtake every effortto ensure thatsuch Sûsloppiness''doesnotoccur again. E PlaintifrsFCCPA Claim isDismissed WithoutPrejudice Lastly,Defendantsseek to dismissPlaintiffs Florida Conslzm er Collection PracticesAct claim .Defendantsagainarguethatthechoiceof1aw provision intheLoanAgreem ent,designating K ansaslaw ,precludes this claim . How ever,asnoted above,the choice oflaw provision does not apply to Greensky. In the altem ative,D efendantsargue thatPlaintiffhas failed to plead sufficient factsto establish aviolation oftheFCCPA. U nder the FC CPA ,a person is prohibited from claim ing,attem pting,or threatening Gsto entbrceadebtwhen suchpersonknowsthatthedebtisnotlegitimate,orasserttheexistenceofsom e otherlegalrightwhen such person knowsthattherightdoesnotexist.''Fla.Stat.j559.7249). W hilePlaintiffallegesthatGreenskyattempted to collectm oniesfrom her,thecomplaintdoesnot setoutanyspecificfactsrelatedtoany collection effortsby Greensky.Thus,thecomplaintalleges nothing morethan aconclusion,afonuulaicrecitation ofoneofthe elem entsoftheclaim .Thisis insufficient under lqbal and Twombly. A ccordingly, the FCCPA claim against Greensky is dismissedwithoutprejudice. W hilethechoiceof1aw provision,ifenforceable,wouldrequiredismissalwithprejudiceof this claim against lntnzst,the Courtdeclines to decide this issue,w hich has not been adequately brièfed,atthisstageoftheproceedings. However,the claim againstIntrustsuffersfrom thesame pleading deficiency as the claim againstGreensk'y - there are no actualfactsalleged regarding attempts at collection. Consequently,the FCCPA claim against Intrustis dismissed without Prejudice. A ccordingly,itishereby O RDERED that: Defendants'JointM otiontoDismissPlaintiffsAmendedComplaintEDE 35qis GM NTED in partand DENIED in part; a) CountIiséismissedwithprejudicetotheextentthatitallegesthatthe Loan Agreementwasan open-end credittransaction. b) Plaintiffstmjustenrichmentclaim,Cotmt111,againstIntrustisdismissed withoutprejudice. c) PlaintiffsCSOA claim,CountIV,againstIntrustisdismissedwithout prejudice. 2. d) CountV againstbothDefendantsisdismissedwithoutprejudice. e) TheM otion to Dismissisdenied in a11otherrespects. Plaintiffshallfileasecond amended complaintby Septem ber28,2018. DONEAND ORDERED inChambersinMiami,Florida,this/ d yofSeptember, 2018. < D A RIU N P A YLES UVITED STATES ST 18 T JUDGE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
