Borrow, a resident of State A, obtained a $12,000 car loan from Finco. Finco is incorporated and has its principal place of business in State A. When Borrow began making installment payments against the loan, she was dismayed to learn that her required monthly payments were in an amount greater than she had expected. Borrow brought suit against Finco in a state court in State A, asserting a claim under the federal Truth-in-Lending Act (“TLA”). TLA specifically requires lenders to disclose to a borrower in a consumer loan transaction the amount of the monthly loan payment. TLA further provides that a borrower whose rights under TLA have been violated may bring an action against the lender in a U.S. district court, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction. Finco filed its answer denying liability and asserting a counterclaim against Borrow under state law for recovery of the full amount owed on the loan. Finco then timely removed the suit to the U.S. district court for the district of State A. In the district court, Borrow moved to remand the action. The motion was denied. Shortly thereafter Borrow moved to amend her complaint to (1) add an additional defendant, Dealer, the company that had sold her the car, (2) allege that Dealer violated State A’s Consumer Protection Law (“CPL”) by providing her erroneous information about the terms of her loan, and (3) allege that Dealer’s CPL violation had resulted in $20,000 in damages. Dealer is incorporated in State A and conducts all of its business there. The district court denied the motion to amend on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Borrow’s claim against Dealer. Borrow next moved for partial summary judgment that, if granted, would preclude Finco from denying that its lending agreement violated TLA. In support of this motion, Borrow offered uncontradicted evidence that in previous lawsuits brought by other borrowers in federal court, final judgments had been entered against Finco on holdings that, under circumstances identical with those in the present lawsuit, Finco’s failure to make the required loan payment disclosure violated TLA. Borrow’s motion was denied. Were the district court’s rulings correct as to
1. Borrow’s motion to remand?
2. Borrow’s motion to amend her complaint?
3. Borrow’s motion for partial summary judgment? Discuss.
The post When Borrow began making installment payments against the loan, she was dismayed to learn that her required monthly payments were in an amount greater than she had expected. appeared first on My blog.
