United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division
SARAH W. HAYS, Magistrate Judge.
On March 3, 2014, plaintiff Anthony Smiley filed suit against defendant Gary Crossley Ford, Inc. The action was brought under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq., and its implementing Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. Part 226. Through this action, plaintiff alleges that defendant failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose the Annual Percentage Rate and Finance Charge in the Retail Installment and Security Agreement plaintiff entered into in connection with plaintiff's purchase of a vehicle from defendant.
On February 10, 2015, defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant argues that plaintiff's claims in this matter are barred by the doctrines of waiver and release, arising from the settlement of prior litigation between plaintiff and defendant. Alternatively, defendant seeks an entry of partial summary judgment, in that plaintiff's claim for statutory damages is capped at $2, 000.00.
While the majority of the facts set forth in defendant's Suggestions in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment are undisputed, plaintiff has set forth additional facts, controverted by defendant, which preclude an entry of summary judgment.
The following undisputed facts were set out by defendant:
1. Plaintiff's claims in this matter arise from Defendant's extension of credit to Plaintiff arising from Plaintiff's purchase of a 2013 Ford Fusion (the "Vehicle") from Defendant on May 11, 2013.
2. To finance his purchase of the Vehicle, Plaintiff entered into a Retail Installment and Security Agreement (the "Contract").
3. On January 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Petition in Clay County, Missouri, Small Claims Court (the "Small Claims Petition") requesting $2, 500 in damages.
4. Plaintiff's Small Claims Petition alleged that he purchased the Vehicle and signed the Contract under the belief that he would be eligible for the "Trade-In Assistance Program" offered by Defendant.
5. Plaintiff's Small Claims Petition further alleged he was contacted by the company that administered the Trade-In Assistance Program and was told his Vehicle did not qualify for that program as the term of his loan term exceeded 72 months.
6. Plaintiff also alleged in his Small Claims action that the exclusion of his vehicle from the Trade-In Assistance Program was not reflected in his Contract with Defendant.
7. On March 24, 2014, prior to Plaintiff's Small Claims Petition being adjudicated, Plaintiff agreed to mediate the matter with a Court-appointed mediator (the "Mediation").
During the mediation, preliminary settlement terms were reached, in which Plaintiff agreed to settle his claims against Defendant if Defendant honored the Trade-In Protection Program regardless of the terms of his loan, and ...