Sabrina Archibald and Sade Archibald v. Scott Credit Union

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois considers Scott Credit Union’s motion to dismiss an amended complaint brought by Sabrina and Sade Archibald. The claims concern alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, unjust enrichment, intrusion upon seclusion, breach of contract, wrongful repossession, and requests for declaratory and injunctive relief. The court allows the TILA claim to proceed in part and dismisses the remaining claims discussed in the excerpt, with several dismissals entered with prejudice.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs plausibly stated a TILA claim by alleging that they made written requests for identification of the owner or master servicer of the obligation and Defendant failed to respond.
2. Plaintiffs failed to state a claim based on alleged failure to provide documentation, itemized premiums, or explanatory disclosures concerning force-placed insurance.
3. Plaintiffs failed to state a claim under § 1638(a) based on allegedly inconsistent account statements and later communications because the required disclosures must be made before consummation of the transaction.
4. Plaintiffs failed to state claims under paragraphs (b) and (c), but plausibly stated a claim under paragraph (j) because the Loan Agreement listed the total sales price and downpayment as zero despite Plaintiffs' alleged $4,000 downpayment.
5. The FCRA claim was improperly included in the amended complaint and was dismissed with prejudice because the Court had previously dismissed it with prejudice.
6. Plaintiffs failed to state an ICFA claim because their allegations did not plausibly show deceptive or unfair conduct, actual pecuniary loss, or substantial consumer injury.
7. Plaintiffs failed to state an unjust-enrichment claim because the underlying fraud theory failed and the express Loan Agreement governed the parties' relationship.
8. Plaintiffs failed to state an intrusion-upon-seclusion claim because the alleged repossession conduct and disclosure did not constitute an unauthorized intrusion, and Defendant could not be vicariously liable where the agent committed no actionable tort.
9. Plaintiffs plausibly stated a claim for wrongful attempted repossession because their allegations, taken together, sufficiently alleged that Defendant's agent breached the peace.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiffs plausibly stated a Truth in Lending Act claim based on Defendant's alleged failure to identify the obligation's owner or master servicer and failure to disclose the correct total sale price and downpayment.
2. Whether the previously dismissed Fair Credit Reporting Act claim could be reasserted in the amended complaint.
3. Whether Plaintiffs plausibly alleged a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
4. Whether Plaintiffs could maintain an unjust-enrichment claim where an express loan contract governed the parties' relationship and the underlying fraud theory failed.
5. Whether Plaintiffs plausibly alleged intrusion upon seclusion based on an attempted repossession, entry onto property, and disclosure of debt information.
6. Whether the previously dismissed breach-of-contract claim could be reasserted.
7. Whether Plaintiffs plausibly alleged wrongful attempted repossession based on a breach of the peace.
8. Whether the previously dismissed claim for declaratory and injunctive relief could be reasserted as an independent count.

Disposition

other