Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00944-JJF Document 16 Filed 12/15/2005 Page 1 of 2
LAW OFFICES
TYBOUT, REDFEARN 8 PELL
is. ir/11.soN1:15111%.-11eN SUSAN A US" _ _ _
jgjqjfjjgp LY/l PELL ROBERTM. (¤I€I:LiNBI;R(·
) I `1II ( )N 300 TIMOTHY S' MARHN
W "·. 11 1 unsg ,
lL€;ll¥‘/‘K{i%{X‘ii$D° 1>.o. Box 2092 (Efgtroii mow
DANIEILLE K._YlEA1€1(7K W]LM[NGTQN’ DELAWARE 19899.2992
nkmws ]. M1:NTON (302) 658-6901
TELEco1>1E12
658-4018
December 14, 2005
Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building
844 N. King Street
Room 4124
Lockbox 27
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Robert Floyd v. Saturn of Newark
C.A. No. 04-944
Dear Judge Farnan:
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.2(c), please consider the following submission of
subsequent authority when reviewing Saturn of Newark’s Motion to Dismiss, which was
filed on April 26, 2005. On July 11, 2005, this Court granted General Motors Acceptance
Corporati0n’s ("GMAC") Motion to Dismiss in the present action. See Memorandum
Opinion, Floyd v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., C.V. 04-944, Farnan, J (July 11,
2005).
This Court’s holding regarding GMAC’s Motion to Dismiss held that Mr. Floyd failed
to plead an amount of damages in excess of $75,000 and failed to produce sufficient
evidence to satisfy a claim related to thejurisdictional amount. Q at 7. Furthermore, this
Court held that "Mr. Floyd has failed to state a claim pursuant to the [Truth in Lending Act]."
la; at 10. The Court could not find any allegation in the complaint where the defendants
failed to disclose terms in the lease agreement at the time the parties entered into the
lease agreement. g at 10-11. Mr. FIoyd’s action is a breach of contract, which does not
involve a federal question. g at 11.
This Court’s July 11, 2005, Order further supports Saturn of Newark’s Motion to
Dismiss for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction, as Saturn of Newark argued
that this Court lacked subject matterjurisdiction, because the amount in controversy did
not exceed $75,000 and a federal question of law had not been sufficiently pled. Saturn
of Newark contends that Mr. Floyd failed to set forth a claim under the Truth in Lending
Act, because he did not plead that Saturn of Newark failed to disclose any material terms
in the lease agreement. This Court stated "Mr. Floyd has alleged no facts whereby relief

Case 1:04-cv-00944-JJF Document 16 Filed 12/15/2005 Page 2 of 2
could be granted pursuant to the [Truth in Lending Act] or Regulation M under any set of
facts that could be proved consistent with Mr. F|oyd’s a||egations." g at 11 (emphasis
added)
Further, this Court acknowledged that Mr. FIoyd’s vague reference to discrimination
was not sufficient under the ECOA, because he failed to plead that he was denied credit
due to his membership of a protected class. Q at 13. Mr. Floyd has not alleged any facts
to support a finding that Saturn of Newark deprived him of a right based upon his
membership as part of a protected class. Ld,
Mr. Floyd has failed to seek an amount in excess of $75,000, set forth any
allegations that Saturn of Newark violated the Truth in Lending Act, Equal Credit
Opportunity Act, or any claim for discrimination. As such, Saturn of Newark respectfully
asserts that this Court’s July 11, 2005, decision as to GMAC’s Motion to Dismiss supports
a finding in favor of Saturn of Newark’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
Respectfully Submitted,
` ` wswx K. '7
C rata v yuh/lg
DANIELLE K. YEARICK, I.D. #3668
Attorney for Saturn of Newark