Trust v. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation and Carvana

Background

Alicia S. Francis Trust filed claims for breach of contract, conversion, fraud, breach of privacy, and violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The complaint alleged that a vehicle was purchased in the name of Pauline Richards from Carvana and financed by Bridgecrest, and that Defendants later failed to honor an attempted settlement and continued reporting and enforcing the account. The opinion states that Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation was an improper name for Bridgecrest Credit Company, LLC.

The trust’s complaint was signed and filed by the trustee, identified in the papers as “Alicia: of the Ettienne-Francis family.” The trustee stated that she appeared in a fiduciary capacity under authority from the trust. The opinion states that she did not claim to be a lawyer or to be admitted to practice in the court. Carvana did not appear or participate.

Motion to Remand

Bridgecrest removed the case from New York Supreme Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The court held that the Fair Credit Reporting Act claim created federal-question jurisdiction. It also exercised supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, because those claims arose from the same dispute over the vehicle purchase and financing.

The trust argued that removal was improper because Carvana had not joined or consented to it. The court held that Carvana did not have to consent because the trust had attempted to serve Carvana only by certified mail. Under the New York law discussed in the opinion, mail is not an acceptable method for serving a limited liability company. The court therefore held that Carvana had not been properly served when Bridgecrest removed the case and denied the motion to remand.

Motion to Dismiss

Bridgecrest moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a claim. The court did not decide whether the trust’s contract, fraud, privacy, conversion, or Fair Credit Reporting Act allegations were legally valid on their merits.

Instead, the court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1654, which allows a person to represent themselves or to be represented by a licensed attorney. The court held that an unlicensed trustee cannot represent a trust or bring claims on behalf of the trust’s beneficiary in federal court. Because the trustee was not shown to be a licensed attorney, the court dismissed the action without prejudice to refiling through an attorney.

Disposition

The court denied the motion to remand and granted Bridgecrest’s motion to dismiss. The Clerk was directed to terminate the listed motions and close the case. The opinion does not separately state a disposition for the trust’s motion for “Judgment on Undisputed Facts & Demand for Equitable Relief,” although that motion was among the docket entries the Clerk was directed to terminate.