Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

Case No.: 9:22cv81868

MARK ROSEMAN, 

An Individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

WPB F AUTOMOTIVE MANAGEMENT, LLC. 

A Florida Limited Liability Company,

Defendant.

______________________________/

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND 

FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, MARK ROSEMAN, brings this action against WPB F 

AUTOMOTIVE MANAGEMENT, LLC., a Florida Limited Liability Company,

under the Consumer Leasing Act (“CLA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1667, and its implementing

regulations, 12 C.F.R. § 1013 et seq. (“Regulation M”).

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. The Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 

because the claim arises from the CLA, a federal statute. 15 U.S.C. § 1667d(c). 

2. Venue is proper before this Court because the acts and transactions 

giving rise to Plaintiff’s action occurred in this district, Plaintiff resides in this 

district, and Defendant transacts business in this district.

Case 9:22-cv-81868-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 1 of 9
Page 2 of 9

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff is a natural person who at all relevant times resided in Lake

County, Florida.

4. Defendant is a Florida limited liability company that routinely conducts 

business in Palm Beach County, Florida.

NATURE OF ACTION

5. As one district court recognized, “Congress enacted the CLA as an 

amendment to the [Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”)] and [thereby] extended the 

TILA’s ‘credit disclosure requirements to consumer leases.’” Clement v. Am. 

Honda Fin. Corp., 145 F. Supp. 2d 206, 209 (D. Conn. 2001) (quoting Turner v. 

Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 180 F.3d 451, 454 (2d Cir. 1999)).

6. The TILA—and, by extension, the CLA—was put in place to protect 

consumers from obfuscation or misinformation in credit and lease transactions.

7. Congress recognized and sought to remedy the information imbalance 

in such transactions, particularly for inexperienced or uninformed consumers

lacking the financial shrewdness of those companies responsible for extending

credit.

THE CLA

8. “Passed by Congress as an amendment to the Truth in Lending Act [], 

the CLA purports ‘to assure a meaningful disclosure’ of personal property lease 

Case 9:22-cv-81868-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 2 of 9
Page 3 of 9

terms to ‘enable the lesseeto compare more readily the various lease terms available 

to him [and] limit balloon payments in consumer leasing.’” Gaydos v. Huntington

Nat. Bank, 941 F. Supp. 669, 672 (N.D. Ohio 1996) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1601(b)).

9. The CLA’s primary purpose is to:

“assure a meaningful disclosure of the terms of leases. . .so asto enable

the lesseeto compare more readily the various lease terms available to 

him.” 15 U.S.C. § 1601(b). Because lease financing had become

recognized as an alternative to creditfinancing and installment sales 

contracts, Congress also intended CLA disclosure requirements to

“enable comparison of lease terms with credit terms where

appropriate.” Id. The CLA thus requires lessors of personal property 

subject to its provisions to make specified disclosures when a lease is

entered into. See 15 U.S.C. § 1667a (consumer lease disclosures).

Turner, 180 F.3d at 454.

10. Accordingly, the TILA’s “strict liability standard attaches to violations 

of CLA disclosure requirements as well.” Gaydos, 941 F. Supp. at 672.

11. Equally important, “[t]he TILA reflects a transition in congressional 

policy from a philosophy of ‘Let the buyer beware’ to one of ‘Let the seller 

disclose.’” Layell v. Home Loan & Inv. Bank, F.S.B., 244 B.R. 345, 350 (E.D. Va. 

1999) (quoting Mourning v. Family Publications Serv., Inc., 411 U.S. 356, 377 

(1973)).

12. Given the CLA’s enactment within the same statutory structure, this

philosophy applies with equal force to the CLA and Regulation M.

13. TheCLA andRegulation M require that disclosuresin a consumerlease

Case 9:22-cv-81868-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 3 of 9
Page 4 of 9

be made in a clear and conspicuous manner.

14. Certain disclosures described in Regulation M also must be made in a

“segregated” manner:

The following disclosures shall be segregated from other 

information and shall contain only directly related information: §§ 

1013.4(b) through (f), (g)(2), (h)(3), (i)(1), (j), and (m)(1). The

headings, content, and format for the disclosures referredto in this

paragraph (a)(2) shall be provided in a manner substantively similar

to the applicable model form in appendix A of this part.

12 C.F.R. § 1013.3(a)(2)

15. Those disclosures that must be “segregated from other information” 

include the following:

(i) Purchase option. A statement of whether or not the lessee has 

the option to purchase the leased property, and:

(1) End of lease term. If at the end of the lease term, the

purchase price[.]

12 C.F.R. § 1013.4.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

16. In January of 2019, Plaintiff leased a new 2019 Alfa Romeo Giulia

(“Vehicle”) from Defendant. 

17. During the course of the lease transaction for the Vehicle, Defendant 

prepared and had the Plaintiff execute a Closed-End Vehicle Lease Agreement 

Case 9:22-cv-81868-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 4 of 9
Page 5 of 9

(“Lease”). A copy of the Lease is attached as Exhibit A.

18. Upon consummation of the Lease, Plaintiff left the Defendant’s 

premises with the belief he had obtained transportation for purposes germane to 

household and family use upon favorable terms. 

19. In the Lease, Plaintiff was provided with the option to buy the Vehicle 

at the end of the Lease term: “You have an option to buy the Vehicle at the end of 

the lease term for $22,868.40 plus official fees and taxes.” Id. ¶ 9. (“Purchase 

Option.”)

20. Defendant assigned the Lease upon unknown terms and for unknown 

consideration to Ally Bank Lease Trust (“Ally”).

21. At the end of the lease term, Plaintiff contacted Ally and asked about 

the process to buy the Vehicle. 

22. Ally directed Plaintiff to buy the Vehicle through Defendant. 

23. In December of 2021, Plaintiff visited Defendant to exercise the 

purchase option. 

24. To buy the Vehicle, Defendant charged Plaintiff a $998.00 “Predelivery 

Service Charge” as well as a $199.99 “Electronic Registration Filing Fee.”

25. In addition, Defendant also charged an undisclosed fee in the amount 

of $135.60 which was added to the purchase price of the Vehicle by Defendant.

26. The fees and charges described supra were not official fees.

Case 9:22-cv-81868-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 5 of 9
Page 6 of 9

27. These fees were never disclosed in the Lease by the Defendant. 

28. In total, Plaintiff was charged $1,333.59 more than the Purchase Option

disclosed in the Lease. 

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF FEDERAL 

CONSUMER LEASING ACT 15 U.S.C. § 1667a

29. The CLA governs the disclosures in the Lease because the lease term 

ran for 39 months and was for less than $58,300. 15 U.S.C. § 1667(1).

30. Plaintiff is a natural person who leased the Vehicle primarily for 

personal, family, and household purposes. 15 U.S.C. § 1667(1)-(2).

31. Defendant had to comply with the CLA’s disclosure requirements 

because it was a “lessor” under the CLA. 

32. Defendant has leased, offered, or arranged to lease vehicles more than 

five times in the preceding calendar year or more than five times in the current 

calendar year. 15 U.S.C. § 1667(3); Reg. M § 1013.2(h).

33. As described above, Defendant had substantial involvement in the lease

transaction with Plaintiff. 

34. Upon information and belief, Defendant financially gains on the resale 

of the Vehicle at the end of the Lease term. 

35. The Lease is governed by the disclosure requirements of 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1667a and 12 C.F.R. § 213.4. 

Case 9:22-cv-81868-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 6 of 9
Page 7 of 9

36. The disclosure of the purchase option price in the Lease had to be 

accurate, clear, conspicuous, and complete. 12 CFR § 1013.3(a). 

37. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1667 and 12 CFR § 1013.4(i) by

choosing not to disclose in the purchase option price that payment of the a $998.00 

“Predelivery Service Charge”, a $135.60 undisclosed fee, and a $199.00 “Electronic 

Registration Filing Fee” were required to exercise the purchase option at the end of 

the lease.

38. Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1667 and 12 CFR § 1013.4(i) by 

choosing not to disclose in the purchase option price that payment of $1,333.59 more 

than the purchase option price was required to exercise the purchase option at the 

end of the lease. 

39. Defendant violated 12 CFR § 1013.3(a) because the purchase option 

price was unclear, inaccurate, and incomplete. 

40. These omissions were material to Plaintiff’s decision to enter into the 

Lease, and Plaintiff detrimentally relied on these material omissions. 

41. Plaintiff suffered financial loss in that Plaintiff paid $1,333.59 more 

than what the Lease required to buy the Vehicle. 

42. Had Defendant provided an accurate, complete, and clear purchase 

option price in the Lease, which it was required to do, Plaintiff would have 

negotiated better terms or elected declined to lease the Vehicle. 

Case 9:22-cv-81868-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 7 of 9
Page 8 of 9

43. Defendant’s illegal conduct was the actual and proximate cause of the 

actual damages suffered by Plaintiff.

44. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1640, Plaintiff is entitled to recover actual and 

statutory damages from Defendant, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief and judgment against Defendant 

as follows:

A. Actual and Statutory Damages as provided by law;

C. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as allowed by law;

D. Reasonable attorneys' fees and costs;

E. Injunctive relief requiring Defendant to honor its obligation under its 

Lease agreements to sell the Leased vehicles for the price identified on the Lease

agreement; and

F. Such other and further relief as is just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Joshua Feygin

Joshua Feygin, Esq.

Case 9:22-cv-81868-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 8 of 9
Page 9 of 9

FLORIDA BAR NO: 124685

Email: Josh@JFeyginesq.com

JOSHUA FEYGIN, PLLC

1930 Harrison Street, 

Suite 208 F

Hollywood, FL 33020

Telephone: (954) 228-5674

Facsimile: (954) 697-0357

Case 9:22-cv-81868-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/01/2022 Page 9 of 9