A car repossession lawsuit gets a second chance to fix missing federal claims.

Record source: CourtListener

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR: □□□ DISTRICT OF MARYLAND * ‘ MICHEAL OLAROTIMI ABIKOYE, Plaintiff, □□ oe * - 7 . . □ . * Civil No. 26-3485-BAH - THE HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK AND. SECURE COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, * . Defendants: * * * * * * * * * * * ¥ * MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Micheal Olarotimi Abikoye (“Plaintiff”) filed the above-captioned complaint pro se together with an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order, ECF 3, and an emergency motion to proceed in forma pauperis, for expedited screening, for issuance of summonses, and for service by the United States Marshals Service, ECF 4, followed by a corrected motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF 7.! The corrected motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF 7, be granted. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) of 28 U.S.C. requires this Court to conduct an initial screening of this complaint and to dismiss any complaint that (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails tostatea claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 140 S. Ct. 1721, 1723 (2020). The Court is mindful of its obligation to liberally construe a complaint Plaintiff? s corrected motion to proceed in forma pauperis appears to have been incorrectly docketed as a motion filed by The Huntington National Bank, rather than Plaintiff. The Clerk’s Office will be directed to correct the motion’s docket entry text on CM/ECF, □ filed by a self-represented litigant. ‘See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Nonetheless, liberal construction does'not mean that this Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that set forth a cognizable claim. See Weller vy. Dep't of Soe. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985) (stating a district court may not “conjure up questions never squarely presented”). Here, Plaintif? S complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for any of his federal claims, and there is no apparent basis for diversity jurisdiction. Because the Court’s’ □ jurisdiction hinges on an adequately pled federal claim, Plaintiff will be provided the opportunity to file a supplement to his complaint. . . I. BACKGROUND) | □□ Plaintiff brings suit against defendants The Huntington National Bank (“Huntington”) and □ Secure Collateral. Management, LLC (*SCM")2 See ECF 1.. The complaint concerns a 2016 Honda Civic that Plaintiff financed in August 2025 through a “retail installment sale contract”. totaling 72 monthly payments of $432.46. Id at 2 | 13-14. The terms of the contract are governed by the Maryland Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions. /d. at3 7 15. Plaintiff “pleads the operative transaction as a dealer-originated retail installment credit sale rather than a separate direct cash loan independently advanced by Huntington to Plaintiff” fd. § 16. Plaintiff alleges that Huntington’s records “have reflected objective conflicts concerning otiginal balance, □□□□ opened date, last-payment date, tem, current balance, delinquency status, and dispute notation.”, id. ¥ 18. These conflicts include, among other conflicts, different original balances ($20,120 in bureau data versus $21,320.69 in the contract), different opening dates (August 1, 2025, versus 2 The facts provided in'this section are taken from the complaint and attached exhibits and are assumed true for the purposes of this memorandum and order. . August 23, 2025), different last payment dates (February 1, 2026, versus February 23, 2026), and a term of zero versus 72 months. In January 2026, Plaintiff mailed a written dispute pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § □□□□□□ presumably regarding these differences though the complaint does not specify. Jd 919. Plaintiff “later sent: direct disputes, consumer-reporting disputes, requests for owner/master-servicer identification, assignment proof, accounting, and correction.” Id. | 20. On Mach 24, 2026, Huntington issued a notice of default asserting that $480.30 was past due, plus a $15 charge, with an April 10, 2026, cure deadline. Id. q 21. Plaintiff “disputed the asserted default and requested a complete transaction ledger, payment history, balance history, fee basis, owner or miaster- servicer identity, assignment records, furnishing logs, and repossession instructions.” Jd. 22. On April 28, 2026, Huntington responded to Plaintiff's dispute, stating that the account was past due, repossession would not be suspended, and no credit-profile adjustment would be made. Jd. J 23. Plaintiff contends that Huntington’s response “did not provide a field-by-field reconciliation of the disputed records.” Id . On May 6, 2026, SCM repossessed the 2016 Honda Civic, which Plaintiff continued to dispute by “request[ing] human review, authenticated ‘accounting, proof of authority, correction, make-whole relief, preservation, and return of the vehicle and unrelated personal property.” id. ¥f 25-26. Huntington then closed Plaintiff's account. Jd. { 27. On August 14, 2026, Huntington issued a written sale notice identifying the contract as a “Loan/Retail Installment Contract” and ‘scheduling the public:sale of the 2016 Honda Civic for September 3, 2026. Jd. at 1 92, at4 4 28. The sale notice stated that “Huntington has the property because Plaintiff allegedly ‘broke promises in [their] agreement,’ but it does not itself reconcile the identified transaction, payment, ‘balance, furnishing, assignment, default, or closure issues.” Id at 4 729. Plaintiff alleges various damages resulting from the repossession including loss of use, substitute transportation, lost work, eredit-reporting injury, costs from; repossession, loss of personal property, payments subject to lawful refund, and other actual or statutory damages available. Id. 432A. Plaintiff brings two claims under federal law and six Maryland law claims, alleging federal question and supplemental jurisdiction: violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2(b), against Huntington (Count I); violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6) against SCM (Count II); three claims under Maryland Commercial Law § 9-625(a), § 12-1001 et seq., and § 12-1021 - (Counts III-V), and cla for breach of contract, misrepresentation and collection of unauthorized amounts, and conversion (Counts VI-VIII). ECF 1. IL. PLAINIIFE’S FEDERAL CLAIMS A. Legal Standard ' Although a complaint need not contain detailed allegations, the facts alleged must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative-level and require “more than labels and conclusions,” as “courts ‘are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Papasan y. Allain, U.S. 265, 286: (1986). The complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. .Once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent

Official opinion source