From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chastain v. N.S.S. Acquisition Corp.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
May 12, 2010
378 F. App'x 983 (11th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 09-14157 Non-Argument Calendar.

May 12, 2010.

Raymond G. Ingalsbe, Raymond G. Ingalsbe, P.A., Palm Beach Gardens, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Nancy Wood Gregoire, Kirschbaum, Birnbaum, Lippman Gregoire, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. D.C. Docket No. 08-81260-CV-DTKH.

Before BLACK, PRYOR and COX, Circuit Judges.


Plaintiff-Appellant Claude David Chastain brought a putative class action against N.S.S. Acquisition Corp. d/b/a Bev Smith Toyota alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act, the Florida Motion Vehicle Retail Sales Finance Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act. The district court dismissed the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (R.l-20.)

Appellant's brief acknowledges that this case "is a virtual mirror image of Hunter v. Bev Smith Ford, LLC," a putative class action that was dismissed by the district court and was pending on appeal at the time this appeal was briefed. (Appellant's Br. at 11.) And, Appellant makes no additional arguments to those made in the Hunter appeal as to why the district court erred when it dismissed his complaint.

Since this appeal was briefed, a panel of this court heard oral argument in Hunter and issued an opinion affirming the dismissal of that case. Hunter v. Bev Smith Ford LLC, 353 Fed.Appx. 218 (11th Cir. 2009). In this case, as we did in Hunter, we reject Appellant's arguments and affirm.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Chastain v. N.S.S. Acquisition Corp.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
May 12, 2010
378 F. App'x 983 (11th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

Chastain v. N.S.S. Acquisition Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Claude David CHASTAIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Date published: May 12, 2010

Citations

378 F. App'x 983 (11th Cir. 2010)

Citing Cases

Ruiz v. Auto Star Motors, Inc.

Simply put, "there is nothing in TILA or Regulation Z which prohibits financing contingencies in consumer…

Meeks v. Murphy Auto Group, Inc.

To the extent that counsel broadly condemns these motor vehicle conditional sales contracts as violative of…