Automated Summary
Key Facts
Plaintiff Deborah Whaley-Lee, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint against Synchrony Bank alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), and breach of contract. Whaley-Lee obtained a credit account from Synchrony in 2020 with an Account Agreement containing a promotional interest program allowing six months to pay in full without interest. She alleges Synchrony failed to properly credit returned merchandise, made false representations about her account status being past due, and breached contract terms. The case was removed to federal court and this Report and Recommendation addresses Synchrony's motion to dismiss. The complaint was filed on March 14, 2025, more than four years after the account was opened.
Transaction Type
Consumer credit account dispute under promotional interest program
Issues
- The court needed to determine if Synchrony Bank is subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as a debt collector. The FDCPA applies only to debt collectors, not creditors collecting their own debts. The court analyzed whether Synchrony, as the creditor who issued the credit account, qualifies as a debt collector under the FDCPA definition, concluding that creditors collecting in their own name whose principal business is not debt collection are not subject to the FDCPA.
- The court needed to determine if the case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff was directed to file a response to the motion to dismiss by May 27, 2025, but did not file by that date. After an order to show cause, Plaintiff filed a response on June 26, 2025, but the court found it failed to meaningfully respond to Synchrony's arguments, essentially abandoning the claims.
- The court needed to determine if Plaintiff Deborah Whaley-Lee's Truth in Lending Act claim against Synchrony Bank states a viable claim for relief and whether the claim is time-barred. The TILA statute of limitations is one year from the date of the violation. The court examined whether the terms were clearly disclosed in the Account Agreement and whether the complaint was filed within the one-year limitation period, concluding the claim fails both on sufficiency grounds and is time-barred as the complaint was filed more than four years after the alleged violations occurred.
- The court needed to determine if the Plaintiff's state law claims under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, breach of contract, and negligent/intentional misrepresentation are viable. The court examined whether the Plaintiff alleged sufficient factual matter to state each claim, finding the allegations were conclusory and failed to identify specific transactions, contract provisions, or fraudulent statements with the particularity required, especially for fraud-based claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).
Holdings
The court recommends granting Synchrony's motion to dismiss. The TILA claim fails to state a viable claim and is time-barred, as the alleged violations occurred more than one year before the complaint was filed. The FDCPA claim fails because Synchrony is a creditor collecting its own debt, not a debt collector. State law claims under the MCPA, breach of contract, and misrepresentation all fail due to insufficient factual allegations and lack of specificity. The plaintiff also failed to meaningfully respond to the motion to dismiss.
Remedies
The Magistrate Judge recommended granting Synchrony Bank's motion to dismiss, resulting in dismissal of the consumer rights case filed by Deborah Whaley-Lee.
Legal Principles
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss standard requiring complaints to state claims plausible on their face, as established in Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly. The court also applied the TILA one-year statute of limitations for private causes of action, the FDCPA definition of 'debt collector' excluding creditors collecting their own accounts, Michigan breach of contract elements, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) particularity requirements for fraud claims.
Precedent Name
- Bridge v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB
- Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Express Corp.
- Haines v. Kerner
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal
- Jones v. TransOhio Savings Ass'n
- Bazinski v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
- Keys v. Humana, Inc.
- Thill v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
Cited Statute
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)
- Truth in Lending Act
- Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
- Michigan Consumer Protection Act
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
Judge Name
- Kimberly G. Altman
- Terrence G. Berg
Passage Text
- For the reasons stated above, it is RECOMMENDED that Synchrony's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 4) be GRANTED and the case be DISMISSED. Dated: August 25, 2025 Detroit, Michigan s/Kimberly G. Altman KIMBERLY G. ALTMAN United States Magistrate Judge
- The undersigned agrees. The FDCPA only applies to debt collectors. See Garner v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., No. 17-1303, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 21546, at *8, 2017 WL 8294293 (6th Cir. Oct. 27, 2017) (citing Bridge v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, 681 F.3d 355, 359 (6th Cir. 2012)). Creditors who collect in their own name and whose principal business is not debt collection are not subject to the FDCPA. See Wadlington v. Credit Acceptance Corp., 76 F.3d 103, 104 (6th Cir. 1996) ('A debt collector does not include the consumer's creditors.'); Montgomery v. Huntington Bank, 346 F.3d 693, 698-99 (6th Cir. 2003) ('A creditor is not a debt collector for purposes of the FDCPA and creditors are not subject to the FDCPA when collecting their accounts.'); Agbay v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 11-14060, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103475, at *18-19, 2012 WL 3029825 (E.D. Mich. July 25, 2012)('The plain language of 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(F)(ii) excludes as a 'debt collector,' a creditor who is collecting his or her own debt.')
- As to the timeliness, under TILA, any private cause of action must be brought 'within one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation.' 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e). Here, Whaley-Lee alleges she 'obtained a credit account from Defendants PayPal and/or Synchrony Bank in 2020.' The complaint was filed on March 14, 2025, more than four years after Whaley-Lee opened her account, when she claims she was not provided with proper disclosures and the purported violation of TILA allegedly occurred. This is well beyond the one year statute of limitation.