Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 12-1795
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:11cv-00001-RWT)
Argued:
Decided:
August 1, 2013
ARGUED:
Cory Lev Zajdel, Z LAW, LLC, Owings Mills, Maryland,
for Appellant.
Donald M. Falk, MAYER BROWN LLP, Palo Alto,
American
Honda
Finance
Corporation
(Honda
Finance)
Code,
Com.
Law
12-1001
et
seq.
(CLEC),
by
providing
district
her
court
claim
was
dismissed
time
Bediakos
barred,
failed
complaint,
to
allege
concluding
actionable
I.
A.
In 2004, Bediako, a citizen of Maryland, purchased a used
automobile with financing she obtained by executing a Retail
Installment Sale Contract (RISC).
assigned
to
Honda
Finance,
California
corporation.
Bediako
eventually
defaulted
on
her
payment
obligations.
writing that it would sell the car at a private sale after May
15, 2005, but that she could get the vehicle back at any time
J.A. 46-47.
post-sale
notice
to
Bediako
demanding
payment
on
Honda
Finances
deficiency
action
was
pending
in
dates,
requirements.
and
at
unknown
times,
contrary
to
CLECs
States
Finance
District
then
Court
moved
to
for
the
dismiss
District
of
Bediakos
Maryland.
complaint
on
district
court
granted
Honda
Finances
motion
to
time barred because the RISC is a contract for the sale of goods
subject to the four-year statute of limitations in section 2-275
of
Marylands
Uniform
Commercial
Code.
Second,
the
court
to
recover
the
principal
amount
of
its
loan
location
Finance
would
requirements
of
the
vehicle
conduct
of
CLEC.
and
private
the
sale,
Bediako
date
after
which
comported
filed
with
motion
Honda
the
for
reconsideration,
which
the
district
court
summarily
denied.
II.
The issues before us on appeal are whether the district
court erred in concluding that (1) Bediako failed to state a
claim
because
Honda
Finance
has
not
collected
more
than
the
Honda
Finance
complied
with
CLECs
notice
requirements
We
review
de
novo
the
v.
2012).
Montgomery
Cnty.,
district
courts
grant
of
Honda
Md.,
684
F.3d
462,
467
(4th
Cir.
CLEC 12-
1018(a)(2).
in
of
the
grantor
case
shall
certain
not
be
notice
entitled
violations,
to
any
that
the
deficiency
credit
judgment
to
maintains
her
CLEC
damages.
claims
for
entitles
Bediako
that
her
relies
the
district
failure
to
to
relief
primarily
court
allege
actual
without
on
improperly
damages
proving
CLEC
actual
section
12-
relief
for
inadequate
notice
of
private
sale.
Maryland
cases,
for
her
claim
that
an
accounting
and
request
for
declaratory,
and
monetary
Sections 12-1018(a)(2)
12-1018(a)(2),
by
its
plain
terms,
limits
amount
of
the
loan.
As
the
district
court
aptly
the
contrary,
creditors
to
Accordingly,
CLEC
section 12-1018(a)(2)
recover
Bediako
has
the
no
principal
right
to
expressly
amount
monetary
of
permits
a
relief
loan.
under
section 12-1018(a)(2).
section
12-1021(k)(4)
applies
only
to
notice
violations
A.3d 583, 589 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2011) ([N]ominal damages are
not available in an action . . . for a deceptive trade practice
under
the
grounds,
Consumer
59
A.3d
Protection
1016
(Md.
Act . . . .),
2013).
The
revd
purpose
on
of
other
this
harmed
by
the
prohibited
conduct
. . .
from
relatively
minor
statutory
violations.
Lloyd
v.
Gen.
Motors Corp., 916 A.2d 257, 280 (Md. 2007) (internal quotations
omitted).
implicit
A
in
similar
the
limitation
language
of
requiring
actual
damages
section 12-1018(a)(2),
is
which
Financial
Regulation
may
only
award
CLEC
complainant
in
harmony
and
looking
to
as
whole,
we
Bediakos
request
for
equitable
and
declaratory
available under CLEC when the debtor has paid less than the full
principal amount, Bediako has no right to such relief.
Honda
10
Finance
has
repeatedly
abandoned
any
claim
for
deficiency
under
the
applicable
statute
of
limitations.
In
the
short,
even
if
Bediako
has
adequately
alleged
because
she
has
suffered
no
actual
damages
that
are
11
III.
For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
AFFIRMED
12