Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, in the Northern District of Illinois, dismissed all claims brought by a consumer plaintiff against a vehicle finance company and related parties, citing insufficient factual allegations and procedural deficiencies.
The plaintiff, acting pro se, alleged a broad array of statutory and common law violations arising from the purchase and financing of a vehicle. The claims included violations of federal and state consumer protection statutes, fraud, breach of contract, negligence, and racketeering, among others. Central to the complaint were allegations that the defendants misrepresented credit repair services, engaged in unauthorized telemarketing, wrongfully repossessed the vehicle, and reported false information to credit bureaus.
- Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA): Plaintiff failed to allege facts showing the finance company qualified as a “credit repair organization” or made actionable credit repair representations.
Plaintiff alleges Defendant acted as a credit repair organization pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1679(a) as it marketed, advertised, and represented to Plaintiff it would provide services to improve his credit through the Vehicle’s purchase with Defendant funding the transaction. (Dkt. 1 at *9-10). Plaintiff specifically alleges Dealer prominently advertised the credit repair services through its billboard stating, “We Fix Credit,” and that he relied on the false assurances of credit repair and favorable financing terms to enter the Vehicle purchase and finance agreement. (Id. at *10). Finally, Plaintiff asserts Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1679(b) by charging a $2,500.00 advance fee, followed by monthly installment payments, without providing Plaintiff with the promised credit repair, and in fact, causing credit damage through hard credit inquiries, derogatory tradelines, and misreported payments. Id.
…
The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff did not sufficiently set forth facts that Defendant, a vehicle financing entity, qualifies as a “credit repair organization” that can be held liable under the CROA. The Court also agrees, Plaintiff’s allegation that Defendant’s $2,500.00 upfront fee followed by installment payments, violated 15 U.S.C. § 1679 (b)’s “Payment in Advance” provision, fails to allege the terms of any credit repair services that Defendant purportedly agreed to provide. Because Plaintiff’s Complaint, as it stands, fails to sufficiently allege Defendant acted as a credit repair organization or that Defendant made false representations as to trigger liability under the CROA, the Court dismisses his CROA claim.
- Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA): Plaintiff failed to allege that defendant received notice of an indirect dispute, a prerequisite for liability.
- Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA) and Fraud Claims: The fraud-based claims lacked the specificity required by Rule 9(b), failing to identify who made misrepresentations, what was said, and when and where the conduct occurred.
- Conversion and UCC Claims: The plaintiff could not assert a right to the vehicle after rescinding the contract, and the repossession did not breach the peace or violate statutory requirements.
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA): The plaintiff expressly consented to receive covered calls as part of the financing agreement.
- Truth in Lending Act (TILA): The complaint did not allege facts showing a failure to provide required disclosures. Instead, the finance contract included the necessary TILA disclosures.
- Negligence, Breach of Contract, and Unjust Enrichment: The court found no extra-contractual duty, no enforceable contract (given the plaintiff’s claim of rescission), and no basis for unjust enrichment independent of the dismissed fraud claims.
- RICO: The racketeering claim was dismissed for lack of particularized allegations of predicate acts and failure to meet the heightened pleading standard for fraud.
JAMES THOMPSON, v. WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC DBA WESTLAKE FINANCIAL, et al., No. 1:25-CV-03080, 2025 WL 2916992 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 14, 2025).
