crn ne ae ae eee a

aoe

" ITIS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that we grant summary judgment for the

coe roe eae ease

AO 450(Rev. ‘/8syhudgment ina Civil Case
United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois

Eastern Division

Alma Diaz ete.

Vv. Case Number: 00 C 7082
Joe Rizza Ford, Inc.

QO Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been
tried and the jury rendered its verdict.

Se sectaeny ete

a Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues
have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

seat Nah

defendant.

Michael W. Dobbins, Clerk of Court

Date: 11/2/2001 Y

Willie A. Haynes, Deputy Clerk



a

No. 00 C 7082 Page3

The enhancement of the ability to comparison-shop is one purpose of TILA, but not
the only one. The overriding purpose is to promote the informed use of credit, and requiring
substantially similar and full disclosures in a form that the consumer may Keep enhances the
ability to custom-shop, reduces the likelihood of uninformed use of credit, and protects the
consumer from subsequent changes in the terms. 15 U.S.C. §1601. Plaintiff here was
informed, and was protected because she took away her copy. Further, there is nothing to
suggest that she could have not taken away all three copies or the top copy, or notes of the
terms, without executing them, if she had so desired, And, she was in physical possession of
all three copies when she signed. Presumably plaintiff would agree that defendant was in
compliance with Regulation Z if it had removed the top copy at its perforations and handed
it to her before she signed. But in any event, it was “her” copy, and we fail to see any
meaningful distinction between separation of the copies before or after she signed.

Accordingly, we grant summary judgment for the defendant.

JAMES B. MORAN

Senior Judge, U. S. District Court
Nos. dX _, 2001.


o

Minute Grder Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

(y

Name of Assigned Jud; Sitting Judge if Oth
aa Maciswate Judge James B. Moran hare Asshed Fudge
CASE NUMBER 00 C 7082 DATE 11/2/2001
CASE Alma Diaz etc. Vs. Joe Rizza Ford, Inc.
TITLE

{In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

of the motion being presented. ]

e))

MOTION:
Memorandum Opinion and Order
DOCKET ENTRY:
(65) Qo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) o Brief in support of motion due.
(3) Qo Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue___.
(4) o Ruling/Hearingon ss setfor_— at
(5) a Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—_sset for at
(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__setfor___—at__—.
(7) Qo Trial[set for/re-set for]on___at
(8) oO [BenclJury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to___—_at
(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4m) (CM GeneralRule21 OFRCP41(a)(1) O FRCP41(a)(2).
(io) so [Other docket entry] | Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Accordingly, we grant summary

judgment for the defendant.

| [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.
Notified counsel by telephone.

Y | Docketing to mail notices.
v¥_| Mail AO 450 form. _ boeing Sepay ils
ar
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

date maited notice
courtroom

WAH deputy's
initials

Date/time received in
central Clerk’s Office mailing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

ALMA DIAZ, individually and on behalf

)
of all others similarly situated, )
) Lp

Plaintiff, ) Noy , Mere

vs. No. 00 C 7082 ay,
JOE RIZZA FORD, INC., )
)
)

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On July 26, 2001, we left for future decision one claim: that defendant did not give
Plaintiff timely disclosures required by the Truth In Lending Act (TILA) with respect to her
purchases of vehicles in March 2000 and May 2000. We directed that the then motion to
dismiss that claim be treated as a motion for summary judgment, in hopes that the facts could
be made more specific. Plaintiff thereafter filed an affidavit stating that she did not get a copy
of either retail installment contract “in a form that I could keep, before I signed the
document. I only received a copy after I signed the document.” But that does not disclose
when she claims she received the documents and under what circumstances. Plaintiff's
counsel has advised that she cannot do better than that — she cannot recall if she received a
copy immediately after signing or a day or so later.

At the court’s suggestion, defendant then filed an affidavit. That discloses that
defendant uses a three-copy form. The top form is filled out after the terms have been
negotiated, and the customer, after an opportunity to review it, signs the top form — the
imprint of her signature appearing also on the second and third pages. The top copy is then

separated from the other two copies and given to the customer, generally immediately, but

DS


No. 00 C 7082 Page 2

in all events before the customer leaves the premises.

Plaintiff contends that scenario violates TILA and Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. §226.17,
because defendant failed to give her a copy of the required disclosures in a form she could
keep before consummation of the transaction, and several cases lend support to that view.

See Polk v. Crown Auto, Inc., 221 F.3d 691 (4" Cir. 2000); Brugger v. Elmhurst KIA, 2001

WL 845472 (N.D.II.); Harris v. Castle Motor Sales Inc., 2001 WL 477241 (N.D.UL); Walters

v. First State Bank, 134 F.Supp.2d 778 (W.D.Va. 2001); Holley y. Gurnee Volkswagen and

Oldsmobile, Inc., 2000 WL 243191 (N.D.IIL); Lozada v. Dale Baker Oldsmobile. Inc., 197

F.R.D. 321 (W.D.Mich. 2000). We do not quarrel with that concept but we do not believe that
it aptly describes what happened here.

TILA dictates that required disclosures be made before credit is extended. 15 US.C,
§1638(b). Here the form was completed, with all required disclosures, before plaintiff signed.
But TILA is amplified by Regulation Z, which provides as follows:

(a) Form of disclosures.

(1) The creditor shall make the disclosures required by this
subpart clearly and conspicuously in writing, in a form that the
consumer may keep... .
(b) Time of disclosures. The creditor shall make disclosures before
consummation of the transaction... .
Read independently, those provisions require that the disclosures be made before
consummation of the transaction and that they be made in a form that the consumer may
keep, but they do not necessarily require that the form be furnished to the customer before
consummation ofthe transaction. The court so recognized in Polk y. Crown Auto, Inc., supra,
but it concluded that the provisions must be read together, with the form being furnished

prior to the consummation of the transaction, in order to implement the purpose of TILA.

We agree, but not to the extent that we invalidate defendant’s procedures here,