You're viewing Docket Item 30 from the case Sinclair v. Lease Finance Group, LLC et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:






UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DANIEL S. SINCLAIR, JR.

Versus





CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:07CV1560





LEASE FINANCE GROUP, LLC aka
CIT LEASE FINANCIAL GROUP,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CREDIT
MANAGEMENT (WESTERN MICHIGAN),
INC., PHILLIPS & COHEN ASSOCIATES,
LTD., EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., TRANSUNION, LLC,
and EQUIFAX CREDIT INFORMATION
SERVICES, INC.






SECTION B

MAGISTRATE 3

ANSWER

CIT Financial USA, Inc. (CIT), successor-in-interest to Lease Finance Group, LLC,

(LFG) answers plaintiff’s complaint by denying each and every allegation contained therein

except those which hereinafter may be specifically admitted. CIT further states as follows:

FIRST DEFENSE

The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

SECOND DEFENSE

The Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et. seq. (FCRA) is inapplicable to

CIT. In the event that the FRCA applies to CIT, its actions were in compliance with the

statute’s requirements.

280272.1


THIRD DEFENSE

To the extent that the FCRA governs the plaintiff’s claims and applies to the

allegations against CIT, the plaintiff’s negligence, defamation and any other state law claims

are preempted by the FCRA.

FOURTH DEFENSE

CIT has acted in good faith and without malice or intent to injure the plaintiff.

FIFTH DEFENSE

The plaintiff’s claims are in whole or in part time barred.

SIXTH DEFENSE

The plaintiff’s claims are barred by the qualified immunity of 15 U.S.C. § 1681h(e).

SEVENTH DEFENSE

The plaintiff’s damages, if any, were caused by his own acts or omissions or the acts

or omissions of third parties over whom CIT exercises no control or responsibility.

EIGHTH DEFENSE

The plaintiff seeks the imposition of punitive damages. CIT adopts by reference the

defenses, criteria, limitations, standards and constitutional protections described in BMW v.

Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996), Cooper Indus. v. Leatherman Tool Group, 532 U.S. 923 (2001) and State

Farm v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003).

NINTH DEFENSE



CIT reserves the right to add additional affirmative defenses as warranted by

discovery and the factual developments in this case.

And now, answering the specific allegations of plaintiff’s complaint, CIT avers

as follows:

280272.1

2

1.

The allegations of paragraph 1 require no response of CIT. To the extent that an

answer is required, the allegations are denied for lack of sufficient information.

2.

Except to admit that CIT is a foreign corporation and to deny that the address is

correct, the allegations of paragraph 2 are denied for lack of sufficient information.

3.

The allegations of paragraph 3 do not require a response.

4.

The allegations of paragraph 4 do not require a response.

5.

CIT admits that the plaintiff entered into several commercial equipment leases with

Lease Finance Group, LLC and that he was a personal guarantor on the leases which

involved the lease of credit card processing equipment. More than two leases were entered

into, however, and the terms and conditions of all of the leases are pleaded herein as if

copied in their entirety. The remaining allegations of paragraph 5 are denied for lack of

sufficient information.

6.

The allegations of paragraph 6 are denied for lack of sufficient information.

7.

The allegations of paragraph 7 are denied for lack of sufficient information.

280272.1

3

8.

CIT denies that the plaintiff had only two accounts with LFG. The remaining

allegations of paragraph 8 are denied for lack of sufficient information.

9.

The allegations of paragraph 9 are denied for lack of sufficient information.

10.

The allegations of paragraph 10 are denied for lack of sufficient information.

11.

The allegations of paragraph 11 are denied for lack of sufficient information.

12.

The allegations of paragraph 12 are denied for lack of sufficient information.

13.

The allegations of paragraph 13 are denied for lack of sufficient information.

14.

The allegations of paragraph 14 are denied for lack of sufficient information.

15.

The allegations of paragraph 15 are denied for lack of sufficient information.

16.

The allegations of paragraph 16 are denied for lack of sufficient information.

17.

The allegations of paragraph 17 are denied for lack of sufficient information.

18.

The allegations of paragraph 18 are denied for lack of sufficient information.

280272.1

4

19.

The allegations of paragraph 19 are denied for lack of sufficient information.

20.

The allegations of paragraph 20 are denied for lack of sufficient information.

21.

The allegations of paragraph 21 are denied.

22.

The allegations of paragraph 22 are denied.

23.

The allegations of paragraph 23 are denied.

COUNT ONE – NEGLIGENCE

24.

Because the allegations of paragraph 24 call for a legal conclusion, no answer is

required. If an answer is required, the allegations are denied. Moreover, to the extent that

CIT is governed by the FCRA in this matter, the statute preempts any negligence claims.

25.

The allegations of paragraph 25 are denied.

26.

The allegations of paragraph 26 are denied.

COUNT TWO - DEFAMATION

27.

The allegations of paragraph 27 are denied. Moreover, to the extent that CIT is

governed by the FCRA in this matter, the statute preempts any defamation claims.

280272.1

5

28.

The allegations of paragraph 28 are denied.

29.

The allegations of paragraph 29 are denied.

30.

The allegations of paragraph 30 are denied.

COUNT THREE – FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT

31.

The allegations of paragraph 31 are denied.

32.

The allegations of paragraph 32 are denied.

33.

The allegations of paragraph 33 are not directed to CIT and, therefore, require no

response. To the extent that a response is required, the allegations are denied.

34.

The allegations of paragraph 34 are denied.

35.

The allegations of paragraph 35 are denied.

36.

The allegations of paragraph 36 are denied.

The allegations of paragraph 36 (sic) are denied.

36. (sic)

280272.1

6

37.

The allegations of paragraph 37 are denied.

38.

The allegations of paragraph 38 are denied.

39.

The allegations of paragraph 39 are denied.

40.

The allegations of paragraph 40 are denied.

41.

The allegations of paragraph 41 are denied.

42.

The allegations of paragraph 42 are denied.

43.

The allegations of paragraph 43 are denied.

44.

The allegations of paragraph 44 are denied.

45.

The allegations of paragraph 45 are denied.

46.

The allegations of paragraph 46 are denied.

47.

CIT denies the allegations contained in the paragraph beginning with “Wherefore.”

Further answering, CIT denies the allegations of paragraph 47.

280272.1

7

48.

The allegations of paragraph 48 are denied.

49.

The allegations of paragraph 49 are denied.

50.

Paragraph 50 requires no response of CIT.

Wherefore, CIT Financial USA, Inc., successor-in-interest to Lease Finance Group,

LLC, prays that its answer be deemed good and sufficient and that, after due proceedings,

there be judgment in its favor, dismissing the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, and for all

other general and equitable relief as the Court may deem necessary and proper.



Respectfully submitted:

McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC

s/Christine Lipsey
Christine Lipsey (LA Bar Roll # 1182), T.A.
E. Stewart Spielman, (LA Bar Roll #28766)
MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD, PLLC
One American Place, 14th Floor
Baton Rouge, LA 70825
Telephone: (225) 383-9000
Facsimile: (225) 343-3076
[email protected]
[email protected]

Attorneys for CIT Financial USA, Inc.

280272.1

8



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE



I certify that on October 26, 2007, a copy of this pleading was filed electronically with

the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all known

counsel of record by operation of the court’s CM/ECF system. I also certify that there are

no non-CM/ECF participants.

/s Christine Lipsey
Christine Lipsey



280272.1

9