On March 31, 2025, the Western District of New York dismissed a pro se plaintiff’s Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA) claim as being time-barred.
In Marion v. Transitowne Jeep Chrysler Dodge Ram Williamsville, the Plaintiff brought a claim against an automobile dealership for failure to provide proper disclosures under TILA. Specifically, Plaintiff contended that the TILA disclosures did not include the number of payments she was required to make and incorrectly spelled her last name. She also challenged the accuracy of the down payment listed in the retail installment sales contract.
After failed attempts to arbitrate the case, Plaintiff filed suit and alleged claims for breach of fiduciary duty and consumer protection from deceptive acts (which included claims against the dealer for common law fraud, violations of TILA, and violations of New York General Business Law).
The dealer moved to dismiss the claims, and, regarding the TILA claim, argued that any such claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations. In response, Plaintiff argued that the TILA statutes of limitation should be equitably tolled. The Court ultimately disagreed that the TILA claim was equitably tolled and granted the dealer’s motion to dismiss.
The Marion Court discussed, “in cases involving TILA, the courts have held uniformity that fraudulent conduct beyond the nondisclosure itself is necessary to equitably toll the running of the statute of limitations.” Indeed, courts generally hold that equitable tolling will not be applied unless a plaintiff alleges affirmative acts of concealment by the defendant over and above any alleged nondisclosure that forms the basis of their claims.
Here, Plaintiff failed to allege anything the dealer said or did that was fraudulent beyond the alleged nondisclosures themselves to warrant equitable tolling. Plaintiff argued that the dealer’s lack of response to her request for copies was an affirmative act of concealment. However, the Court was hesitant to consider a non-response as an act of concealment. Furthermore, the Court argued that even if inaction may be construed as an act of concealment, which it was not, the non-response took place after the one-year statute of limitations period had already expired. Thus, the equitable tolling would not even save her claim. Plaintiff failed to take action during the one-year statute of limitations period, which the Court would not waiver on.
Marion shows that Federal Courts are continuing a trend of strict interpretation of TILA, especially in upholding the one-year time bar and conditions required for the Court to apply equitable tolling.
