Desselle v. TD Auto Finance, No. 2:2020cv01357 - Document 12 (E.D. La. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS re 9 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; ORDERED that the defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 12/18/2020. (blg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Desselle v. TD Auto Finance Doc. 12 Case 2:20-cv-01357-LMA-DMD Document 12 Filed 12/18/20 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LEO P. DESSELLE, III CIVIL ACTION VERSUS No. 20-1357 TD AUTO FINANCE LLC SECTION I ORDER & REASONS Before the Court is defendant TD Auto Finance LLC’s (“TD”) motion 1 to dismiss with prejudice the claims of plaintiff Leo P. Desselle, III (“Desselle”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Desselle, who is proceeding pro se, has not opposed the motion. For the following reasons, the motion is granted without prejudice. The Court understands Desselle’s complaint as bringing claims against TD for violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a), a provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), and Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTCA”). 2 Desselle alleges that TD, a debt collector for purposes of the FCRA, violated these statutes by furnishing certain inaccurate information to credit reporting agencies. 3 He also alleges that TD failed to respond to a letter he sent in December 2018, informing TD that he was challenging their reporting. 4 1 R. Doc. No. 9. R. Doc. No. 1, at 2. 3 Id. Desselle’s complaint includes a list of TD’s violations. Id. at 3. Attached to the complaint are exhibits which Desselle suggests are evidence of the violations. Id. at 5–9. 4 Id. at 3. 2 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-01357-LMA-DMD Document 12 Filed 12/18/20 Page 2 of 2 While TD argues that plaintiff’s allegations are facially inaccurate, the Court need not (and does not) reach that issue. While the Court construes pro se pleadings liberally, no liberal construction can stave off dismissal of these claims. Desselle claims that § 1681s-2(a) “authorizes the Court to award monetary civil penalties” and asks the Court to does so. 5 § 1681s-2(a) addresses the “[d]uty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information” to consumer reporting agencies. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a). However, there is no private right of action to enforce it—and Desselle has already had at least one similar suit dismissed for, in part, this reason. See Desselle v. Ford Motor Credit Co. LLC, No. 14-1147, 2014 WL 4635545, at *3 (E.D. La. Sept. 15, 2014) (Fallon, J.) (“15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a) provides no private right of action.”). Desselle also brings a claim under the FTCA. 6 This too fails as a matter of law because Desselle has no power to enforce the FTCA. Yumilicious Franchise, L.L.C. v. Barrie, 819 F.3d 170, 176 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing Fulton v. Hecht, 580 F.2d 1243, 1248 n.2 (5th Cir. 1978)). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. New Orleans, Louisiana, December 18, 2020. _______________________________________ LANCE M. AFRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 R. Doc. No. 1, at 3. Id. at 2. 2
]]>
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.
