United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING RE: MOTION TO DISMISS AND PETITION TO COMPEL
ARBITRATION (DOC. NO. 15) & MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE
STATEMENT (DOC. NO. 32)
C. Hall United States District Judge
Bianca Farrell (“Farrell”) brings this action
against Road Ready Used Cars, Inc. (“Road
Ready”); Ronald Saracino (“Saracino”), the
president of Road Ready; and Seasons Federal Credit Union
(“Seasons”) for alleged violations of the Truth
in Lending Act (“TILA”), the Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices Act (“CTUPA”), the Connecticut
Creditor's Collection Practices Act (“CCPA”),
statutory theft, misrepresentation, conversion, unjust
enrichment, breach of warranty, breach of contract, and
breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
See Compl. at ¶ 1.
Ready and Saracino (“the Road Ready defendants”)
have moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule
12(b)(6) and to compel arbitration of all claims asserted
against the Road Ready defendants pursuant to sections four
and six of title nine of the United States Code. (Doc. No.
15). Seasons has moved for a more definite or separate
statement of Farrell's claims against Seasons. (Doc. No.
32). For the reasons that follow, the Road Ready
defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Petition to Compel
Arbitration is granted in part and denied in part and
Season's Motion for a More Definite Statement is denied.
October 16, 2017, Farrell attempted to purchase a used 2013
Honda Accord (“the vehicle”) from Road Ready
pursuant to a Purchase Order, Invoice, and Retail Installment
Contract, for a retail price of $12, 990 plus taxes.
See Compl. at ¶ 7. Despite denying Farrell
credit, Road Ready accepted $6, 500 from Farrell and sold the
Retail Installment Contract to Seasons. See id. at
¶¶ 8-10. Seasons then opened a loan account for
Farrell even though she had not appeared at Seasons or
requested an account. See id. at ¶ 11.
alleges that the itemization of the amount financed was
false, resulting in a false annual percentage rate. See
id. at ¶ 13. First, the purchase price included
$199 for VIN Etch even though Road Ready's cost was
minimal or non-existent for the product. See id. at
¶ 14. Second, the purchase price included a tire
warranty for $499, but Road Ready had not paid for or placed
the coverage as of December 1, 2017. See id. at
¶ 15. Road Ready had represented that the tire warranty
was free and nonnegotiable. See id. at ¶ 18. In
addition, the tire warranty falsely identified the lienholder
as Wells Fargo and was void because it did not contain any
checked boxes that showed which coverage was included.
See id. at ¶¶ 16-17.
the purchase price included $199 for paint and interior
protections, but the paint was defective and Road Ready did
not provide a contract showing coverage for the protection.
See id. at ¶ 19. Fourth, the purchase price
included $595 for rust proofing and undercoating, even though
Road Ready did not rust proof or undercoat the vehicle.
See id. at ¶ 20. Fifth, the purchase price
included a Service Contract for $2, 495, but Road Ready had
not placed or paid for the coverage as of December 1, 2017,
the Service Contract falsely identified the lienhold as Wells
Fargo and disclosed the purchase price as $2, 995, and the
contract was void because no boxes were checked to show which
coverage was included. See id. at ¶¶
21-23. Sixth, the purchase price included $498 for a Dealer
Conveyance Fee even though, as an electronic conveyance, the
cost to Road Ready was minimal and the fee far exceeded Road
Ready's reasonable costs for processing documentation and
performing services related to the closing of the sale.
See id. at ¶¶ 24-25. Finally, the vehicle
was subject to an open recall at the time of the sale, and
the vehicle had undisclosed front end damage. See
id. at ¶¶ 26-27.
deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the
court must determine whether a plaintiff has stated a legally
cognizable claim by making allegations that, if true, would
show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. See Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007)
(interpreting Rule 12(b)(6), in accordance with Rule 8(a)(2),
to require allegations with “enough heft to
‘sho[w] that the pleader is entitled to relief”
(alteration in original)). The court takes all factual
allegations in the complaint as true and draws all reasonable
inferences in the plaintiff's favor. See Crawford v.
Cuomo, 796 F.3d 252, 256 (2d Cir. 2015). However, the
principle that a court must accept a complaint's
allegations as true is inapplicable to “[t]hreadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
survive a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), “a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.'” Id. (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not
akin to a ‘probability requirement, ' but it asks
for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 556).
Rules 12(e) and 10(b)
Federal Rule 12(e) of Civil Procedure provides:
A party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading
to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so
vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a
response. The motion must be made before filing a responsive
pleading and ...