Smith v. GM Financial
| Devin Smith |
| GM Financial |
| 1:2024cv11895 |
| November 19, 2024 |
| U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Lindsay C Jenkins |
| Contract: Negotiable Instrument |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 20, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 ENTERED JUDGMENT on 12/20/2024. Emailed notice (cn). |
| Filing 11 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: No amended complaint was filed by December 12, 2024. The matter is dismissed without prejudice. All pending motions are terminated. The clerk is directed to close the case. Emailed notice (cn). |
| Filing 10 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: Plaintiff Devin Smith has filed a supplemental document #9 but it does resolve any of the Court's jurisdictional concerns. The document, which is one page and includes several attached documents, states that the claim is for breach of contract and cites to UCC-1-308, but a breach of contract claim is a state law claim and can only be brought in this court where there is diversity jurisdiction between the parties and the amount at issue exceed $75,000. As previously explained, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he and Defendant GM Financial are citizens of different states. Even if he could, the document states that the amount at issue is $38,000, which is well below the required threshold. Finally, Plaintiff's filing references the Truth in Lending Act, which can be found at 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. But the complaint contains no facts that would even begin to implicate TILA, which was "intended to ensure that consumers are given 'meaningful disclosure of credit terms' and to protect consumers from unfair credit practices." Marr v. Bank of Am., N.A., 662 F.3d 963, 966 (7th Cir. 2011). TILA applies to consumer credit transactions of creditors, and the documents Plaintiff has filed do not allege that GM Financial regularly extends credit or even extended a line of credit to him. See also DeLeon v. Beneficial Const. Co., 55 F. Supp. 2d 819, 829 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (dismissing plaintiffs' TILA claim because they failed to allege that the defendant was a creditor or regularly extended consumer credit). Because Plaintiff is pro se, the Court gives him one last opportunity to amend his complaint. The amended complaint must contain facts to support Plaintiff's claim for relief and which would allow this Court to assert jurisdiction over the case in light of the instructions already provided. Failure to file an amended complaint by December 12, 2024 will result in dismissal of the case without prejudice so that Plaintiff can re-file his case in state court. Mailed notice. (jlj, ) |
| Filing 9 MOTION by Plaintiff Devin Smith breach of contract in protest under UCC-1-308 (Exhibits) (Received at the Intake Counter on 12/02/24.) (jxm, ) |
| Filing 8 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: Plaintiff has filed a one-page complaint in this case against GM Financial. The complaint states it is for breach of contract, specifically that Plaintiff "tendered payment and was denied the right to offset the debt owed of $41,740.16." The Court issues the following jurisdictional inquiry. See Bazile v. Fin. Sys. of Green Bay, Inc., 983 F.3d 274, 281 (7th Cir. 2020) ("Federal courts have an independent obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the scope of their jurisdiction, and therefore they must raise and decide jurisdictional questions that the parties either overlook or elect not to press."). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and the party invoking federal subject-matter jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that it exists. Page v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 2 F.4th 630, 634 (7th Cir. 2021). The Complaint does not allege that any claim arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, so federal question jurisdiction does not apply. 28 U.S.C. 1331. As to diversity jurisdiction, the Complaint does not allege than $75,000 is in controversy, and Plaintiff does not allege that he and Defendant GM Financial are citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). Rather than dismiss the case outright pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii); Blake-Bey v. Cook Cnty., 438 F. App'x 522 (7th Cir. 2011), by December 3, 2024, Plaintiff must file a Jurisdictional Statement explaining why there is federal jurisdiction over this case. Failure to file the Jurisdictional Statement will result in dismissal of this case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the motion for attorney representation are entered and continued until the Court can be sure it has jurisdiction over the matter. Mailed notice. (jlj, ) |
| Filing 5 MOTION by Plaintiff Devin Smith for attorney representation. (Received at the Intake Counter on 11/19/24.) (ph, ) |
| Filing 4 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Devin Smith for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Received at the Intake Counter on 11/19/24.) (ph, ) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Devin Smith. (Received at the Intake Counter on 11/19/24.) (ph, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (Received at the Intake Counter on 11/19/24.) (ph, ) |
| Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and no copies by Devin Smith. (Received at the Intake Counter on 11/19/24.) (ph, ) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Maria Valdez. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). (ph, ) |
| CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached #Consent To# form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (ph, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Smith v. GM Financial | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Devin Smith | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: GM Financial | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
