United States District Court, S.D. Florida
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
L. ROSENBERG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
cause is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss [DE 18]. The Motion has been fully briefed. For the
reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted.
attempted to purchase a vehicle from Defendant. DE 1 at 7. In
connection therewith, Plaintiff executed various agreements.
See generally DE 1; DE 18. Plaintiff agreed to grant
Defendant a “seller's right to cancel.” DE 1
at 2. That right permitted Defendant the opportunity to
locate financing (at terms acceptable to Plaintiff) after
Plaintiff took possession of the vehicle. Id; DE 18.
If Defendant was unable to locate auto financing for
Plaintiff, Defendant's right to cancel allowed Defendant
the opportunity to cancel the sale of the vehicle and retake
possession of the vehicle, provided that Defendant returned
all consideration it previously received from Plaintiff back
to Plaintiff. Id. Defendant was unable to locate
auto financing for Plaintiff. DE 1 at 9. Defendant invoked
its right to cancel the sale. Id. This lawsuit
STANDARD OF REVIEW
deciding a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), this Court must accept all factual
allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff; however, a plaintiff is
still obligated to provide grounds of his or her entitlement
to relief which requires more than labels, conclusions and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
561-563 (2007). Unwarranted deductions of fact in a complaint
cannot be admitted as true for the purposes of testing the
sufficiency of the allegations. Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh
Produce, N.A., Inc., 416 F.3d 1242, 1248 (11th Cir.
2005). The facts as pled must state a claim for relief that
is plausible on the face of the pleading. Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678-69.
invokes the federal question jurisdiction of this Court by
bringing three federal claims: Violation of the Truth in
Lending Act (Count I), Violation of the Motor Vehicle
Information and Cost Savings Act (Count V), and a count
styled as a “Constitutional Challenge” alleging
that certain Florida statutes violate the federal Truth in
Lending Act (Count VIII). Each count is addressed in turn.
Truth in Lending Act, Count I
as the Court can discern, Plaintiff has alleged two different
grounds for her Truth in Lending Act claim. The first is that
Defendant's unilateral right to cancel the sale of a
vehicle violates TILA. The second is that Defendant did not
disclose to Plaintiff that it-the Defendant-was a creditor.
Right to Cancel the Sale.
right to cancel appears in the sales contract, which is
attached as an exhibit to Plaintiff's Complaint. DE 1-1
at 4. Plaintiff admits in her Complaint that the right to
cancel clause existed in the agreements she
signed and that Defendant invoked that clause
after she took possession of one of Defendant's vehicles.
DE 1 at 1-4. Plaintiff argues that Defendant has violated
TILA because its agreement with Plaintiff included a
unilateral right to cancel the sale. Thus, Plaintiff's
dispute with Defendant under TILA is a legal
dispute-Plaintiff argues that the existence of the
right to cancel clause itself violates TILA. Id.
seller's unilateral right to cancel a sales contract or a
contract conditioned upon seller-located financing, does not,
by itself, violate TILA. See, e.g., Bragg v.
Bill Heard Chevrolet, Inc., 374 F.3d 1060, 1068 (11th
Cir. 2004). Numerous cases support this proposition because,
importantly, a sales contract conditioned upon financing
does not relieve the seller of TILA disclosure
obligations. Id. Thus, a unilateral right to
cancel a sale or a sales contract conditioned upon
seller-located financing does not, in and of itself, violate
TILA because TILA applies to the entire transaction
from the moment the buyer executes the sales contracts:
[Plaintiff's] signature on [the sales agreements]
rendered him contractually obligated to the purchase of
credit and thus constituted consummation for purposes of TILA
disclosures. To give full effect to TILA's goal of
providing meaningful and timely disclosure of important
credit terms, we hold that in a financing agreement
containing a condition precedent where the condition of
obtaining financing is within the exclusive ...