Opinion
Case No. 8:19-cv-903-T-30SPF
03-17-2020
Justin Lee FOWLER, Plaintiff, v. ELEGANT AUTO FINANCE LLC, Defendant.
Robert W. Murphy, Law Office of Robert W. Murphy, Ft Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff. Joel Maurice Aresty, Joel M. Aresty P.A., Tierra Verde, FL, for Defendant.
Robert W. Murphy, Law Office of Robert W. Murphy, Ft Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff.
Joel Maurice Aresty, Joel M. Aresty P.A., Tierra Verde, FL, for Defendant.
ORDER
JAMES S. MOODY, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In August 2018, Justin Lee Fowler purchased a 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee from Elegant Auto Finance LLC. The sales documents and odometer disclosure presented to Fowler indicated the "actual mileage" on the Jeep was 121,399 miles. After paying for the Jeep, Elegant Auto told Fowler it had not yet received title to the Jeep from when Elegant Auto purchased it from auction. In February 2019, Elegant Auto asked Fowler to come back in so he could sign paperwork to transfer title to his name. Part of that paperwork included a new odometer disclosure, indicating that the odometer as of the date of sale read 122,396 miles, but this "is not the actual mileage."
Rather than signing the new paperwork, Fowler sued Elegant Auto for violating the Federal Odometer Act, 49 U.S.C. §§ 32701 et al. (the "Act"). Elegant Auto now seeks summary judgment, arguing that the undisputed record evidence shows it had no intent to defraud Fowler when it provided the false odometer statement at the time of sale. But the Court concludes the motion must be denied because Fowler presented evidence to create a factual dispute as to whether Elegant Auto is liable under the Act.
The Act was formerly known as the Motor Vehicle and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1981 et al.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Motions for summary judgment should be granted only when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The existence of some factual disputes between the litigants will not defeat an otherwise properly supported summary judgment motion; "the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The substantive law applicable to the claimed causes of action will identify which facts are material. Id. Throughout this analysis, the court must examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and draw all justifiable inferences in its favor. Id. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
Once a party properly makes a summary judgment motion by demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, whether or not accompanied by affidavits, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings through the use of affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, and designate specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Celotex , 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548. The evidence must be significantly probative to support the claims. Anderson , 477 U.S. at 248–49, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
This Court may not decide a genuine factual dispute at the summary judgment stage. Fernandez v. Bankers Nat'l Life Ins. Co. , 906 F.2d 559, 564 (11th Cir. 1990). "[I]f factual issues are present, the Court must deny the motion and proceed to trial." Warrior Tombigbee Transp. Co. v. M/V Nan Fung , 695 F.2d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 1983). A dispute about a material fact is genuine and summary judgment is inappropriate if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson , 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505 ; Hoffman v. Allied Corp. , 912 F.2d 1379, 1383 (11th Cir.1990). However, there must exist a conflict in substantial evidence to pose a jury question. Verbraeken v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. , 881 F.2d 1041, 1045 (11th Cir. 1989).
DISCUSSION
Under the Act, a person may bring a civil action to enforce a claim under the Act and, if successful, may recover three times the actual damages or $10,000, whichever is greater, plus attorneys' fees and costs, if the defendant violated the Act with an intent to defraud. 49 U.S.C. § 32710. A defendant can violate the Act in several ways, including by tampering with an odometer, § 32703, or by failing to accurately disclose the odometer reading and whether such reading is accurate, § 32705. This case involves the latter violation as Fowler does not allege Elegant Auto tampered with the Jeep's odometer.
Elegant Auto's motion is premised on the unrebutted evidence of Elegant Auto's owner and president Mohammad Gasime al Shboul that he was unaware the odometer reading was incorrect when he sold the Jeep to Fowler. Shboul relies on documents showing he purchased the Jeep at auction in August 2018, and the mileage on the auction paperwork was 121,396 miles. (Doc. 21-1). The auction paperwork also included an odometer disclosure stating the mileage in the paperwork reflected what was shown on the vehicle's odometer. Further, Shboul argues that because the odometer was allegedly only rolled back roughly 1,000 miles—which would not materially alter the value of the Jeep—this evinces a lack of intent to defraud.
The Court disagrees. Under the Act, "a transferor who lacks actual knowledge that the odometer reading is incorrect may still have a duty to state that the actual mileage is unknown." Nieto v. Pence , 578 F.2d 640, 641 (5th Cir. 1978). "If a transferor reasonably should have known that a vehicle's odometer reading was incorrect, although he did not know to a certainty the transferee would be defrauded, a court may infer that he understood the risk of such an occurrence." Id. at 642. In other words, "A transferor may not close his eyes to the truth." Id. So a transferor who lacks actual knowledge can still be liable under the Act if the buyer demonstrates "constructive knowledge, recklessness or gross negligence" by the transferor. Coleman v. Lazy Days RV Ctr., Inc. , No. 8:05-CV-930-T-17TBM, 2007 WL 2021832, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 12, 2007). Here, the Court concludes there is a factual dispute as to whether Elegant Auto had constructive knowledge that the odometer reading was incorrect, or it was reckless or grossly negligent in making the odometer disclosure to Fowler at the time of sale. Although it is unclear from the record, it is possible the Jeep's odometer at the time of sale did not match the auction paperwork Elegant Auto received, which could have put Elegant Auto on notice of a problem with the odometer reading. But even if the evidence does not bear that out, Fowler is correct that Elegant Auto could be found to have acted recklessly or in a grossly negligent manner for selling the Jeep to Fowler while proclaiming the odometer reading was accurate before Elegant Auto received title and could confirm the accuracy of its disclosure. So regardless of how the evidence plays out at trial, the Court concludes disputed issues of fact preclude entry of summary judgment in Elegant Auto's favor.
The decisions by the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981, have been adopted as precedent by the Eleventh Circuit. See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc ).
There is no record evidence the parties have cited indicating whether Fowler looked at the odometer when he purchased the Jeep and noticed it was different from the odometer disclosure he was provided.
Lastly, the Court notes Elegant Auto's arguments related to Fowler's alleged comparative fault do not change the Court's analysis. First, the Court concludes factual disputes as to when Fowler was informed of the issues with the odometer preclude entry of summary judgment. But even if there were no factual disputes, Elegant Auto has not cited any case law or statute demonstrating that comparative fault is a viable defense to Fowler's claim. Generally, comparative fault or contributory negligence does not apply to a claim of fraud. See Burkhart v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. , 884 F.3d 1068, 1090 (11th Cir. 2018). So Elegant Auto has failed to demonstrate entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law on Fowler's claim under the Act.
This conclusion does not prevent Elegant Auto from pursuing its comparative fault defense at trial, assuming Elegant Auto is able to show it is legally entitled to rely on the defense. Nor does it prevent Elegant Auto from relying on this evidence to show it did not have an intent to defraud Fowler regarding the odometer disclosure.
--------
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Elegant Auto Finance LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I (Doc. 29) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 17th day of March, 2020.