Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hardy v. Northern Leasing Systems, Inc.

United States District Court, District of Columbia

July 12, 2013

LA TRICIA HARDY, Plaintiff,
v.
NORTHERN LEASING SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant

Page 151

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 152

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 153

LA TRICIA HARDY, Plaintiff, Pro se, Washington, DC.

For NORTHERN LEASING SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant: OlaDipo A. Akin-Deko, LEAD ATTORNEY, AKIN-DEKO & PUIG PLLC, Silver Spring, MD.

OPINION

Page 154

MEMORANDUM OPINION

AMY BERMAN JACKSON, United States District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint filed on behalf of Northern Leasing Systems, Inc. [ECF No. 11]. For the reasons discussed below, the motion will be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

This action arises from efforts by Northern Leasing Systems, Inc. (" NLS" ) to enforce an equipment finance lease, personally guaranteed by the plaintiff, for the rental of equipment for processing non-cash payments at the plaintiff's business, Capitol Hill Beauty LLC. See Am. Compl. ¶ ¶ 12-14; Mem. of P. & A. in Support of Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (" Def.'s Mem." ); id., Ex. 1 (New York Civil Court Summons and Verified Complaint and Non Cancelable Equipment Finance Lease Agreement (" Lease Agreement" )) at 5-10 (page numbers designated by ECF).

NLS is a " corporation located in the state of New York" which " finances the equipment needs of . . . business[es] . . . ." Def.'s Mem. at 1. NLS represents that it

Page 155

" has no ties to the District of Columbia," that it " does not have an office in the District of Columbia, and that it does not " solicit or engage in persistent conduct aimed at deriving revenue from good or services from the District of Columbia." Id. at 3.

The plaintiff entered into the Lease Agreement with NLS on October 14, 2010. See Def.'s Mem. at 1; Mem. of P. & A. in Support of Denying Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (" Pl.'s Opp'n" ) at 3. She thereby agreed to " individually, absolutely and unconditionally guarant[ee] to [NLS] prompt payment when due" of all obligations under the lease. Lease Agreement at 2. The plaintiff " abid[ed] by her contract for over two years," Am. Compl. ¶ 12, at which time she " stopped the automatic payment deductions from her bank account," id. ¶ 14, and " requested that said contract be cancelled due to inequities within said contract." [1] Id. ¶ 12. When the plaintiff defaulted on her payment obligations, NLS " filed a lawsuit against the [her] . . . in New York State Court[.]" Def.'s Mem. at 1; see id., Ex. 1 (Verified Complaint). " [A] judgment was entered in favor of [NLS]." Def.'s Mem. at 1; Pl.'s Opp'n, Ex. B (Civil Judgment entered on October 26, 2012).

The plaintiff alleges that NLS " placed negative information on [her] credit reports with all three (3) Credit Bureaus," Am. Compl. ¶ 15, and " placed two (2) inquiries on [p]laintiff's credit reports to reflect her account as being a charge off for non-payment," id. ¶ 21. These actions allegedly " brought her credit down drastically." Id. Due to what the plaintiff describes as " erroneous placements on [her] credit reports," she further alleges that " she has been unable to secure any type of loan," causing her " undue hardship." Id. ¶ 22.

According to the plaintiff, NLS violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (" FCRA" ), see 15 U.S.C. § 1681, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (" FDCPA" ), see 15 U.S.C. § 1692, certain District of Columbia criminal statutes, see D.C. Code § § 22-3401 to -3403, the D.C. Consumer Protections Act (" Consumer Act" ), see D.C. Code § 28-3814, and the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (" CPPA" ), see D.C. Code § 28-3904. See generally Am. Compl. ¶ ¶ 23-28 (Counts I-IV). She demands a declaratory judgment and monetary damages. See id. at 5 (page number designated by ECF).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.