Case 3:16-cv-01649-RNC Document 28 Filed 12/20/16 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
_____________________________________
MICHAEL A. CRISCIONE
)
Plaintiff
)
)
v.
)
)
ATLANTIC MOTORS LLC and
)
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
)
Defendants
)
_____________________________________ )

CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:16-CV-1649-RNC

DECEMBER 20, 2016

AMENDED COMPLAINT
I. INTRODUCTION
This is a suit brought by a consumer regarding the purchase and sale of a motor
vehicle pursuant to a retail installment sales contract. Plaintiff brings this action to
recover actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages and reasonable
attorney’s fees and costs from Defendant Atlantic Motors LLC (“Atlantic Motors”). The
Plaintiff claims that Atlantic Motors violated the federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15
U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. (“TILA”), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-565 for civil forgery, the
Connecticut Retail Installment Sales Finance Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 36a-770 et seq.
(“RISFA”) and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110a
et seq. (“CUTPA”), in the sale of the vehicle to Plaintiff.
II. PARTIES
1.

Plaintiff, Michael A. Criscione (“Criscione” or “Plaintiff”), is a natural person

residing in Woodbury, Connecticut.
2.

Defendant Atlantic Motors is a Connecticut limited liability company that

operates a used car dealership in Waterbury, Connecticut.

 Case 3:16-cv-01649-RNC Document 28 Filed 12/20/16 Page 2 of 9

3.

Defendant Credit Acceptance Corporation (“CAC”) is a Michigan

corporation with a principal place of business in that state, and it is a finance company
that accepts assignment of retail installment sales contracts.
III. JURISDICTION

4.

Jurisdiction in this court is proper pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e).

Supplemental jurisdiction exists for the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
5.

This court has jurisdiction over Atlantic Motors because it is organized

under the laws of the state of Connecticut and it regularly conducts business in this
state.
6.

This court has jurisdiction over CAC because it regularly conducts

business in this state.
7.

Venue in this court is proper because the Plaintiff resides in Connecticut

and the claims involve a transaction that occurred in Connecticut.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
8.

Prior to March 31, 2016, Plaintiff saw a 2006 Ford F-250 pick-up truck (the

“Vehicle”) for sale on Atlantic Motors’ website for an advertised price of $18,999.
9.

Plaintiff was interested in the Vehicle, and he visited Atlantic Motors to see

and test drive the Vehicle.
10.

Plaintiff met with an Atlantic Motors’ salesman who identified himself as

Bob, and Plaintiff showed Bob the advertisement of the vehicle on his mobile device.

2

 Case 3:16-cv-01649-RNC Document 28 Filed 12/20/16 Page 3 of 9

11.

Plaintiff returned to Atlantic Motors the next day with his father, and he

negotiated the sale price of the vehicle for $18,000 and a trade-in allowance of $4,000
for his 2001 Chevrolet 2500 HD.
12.

Bob told Plaintiff that his monthly payment would be between $430 and

13.

Plaintiff agreed to purchase the Vehicle for $18,000, and Atlantic Motors

$450.

agreed to give him $4,000 allowance for his trade-in vehicle.
14.

Bob later told Plaintiff he was approved for financing and instructed him to

come to Atlantic Motors after 5:15 pm that day with $400 cash, which he claimed was
for registration fees, and the title for the trade-in vehicle.
15.

Plaintiff returned to Atlantic Motors after 5:15 p.m. as instructed and he

gave Bob the title for the trade-in vehicle and $400.
16.

Plaintiff requested a receipt for the $400 cash payment, and Bob said he

would give him a receipt the next day.
17.

Bob provided Plaintiff with a document that he called a “bill of sale” for the

Vehicle and instructed Plaintiff to sign the form.
18.

Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, the form that he signed was a Supplemental

Assignment of Ownership Q-1 form and at the time Plaintiff signed the Q-1 form, the
selling price of the vehicle was not written on the form.
19.

Atlantic Motors did not provide Plaintiff with a purchase order for the

transaction as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-62(a).
20.

Atlantic prepared a retail installment sales contract that listed Plaintiff as

the seller.

3

 Case 3:16-cv-01649-RNC Document 28 Filed 12/20/16 Page 4 of 9

21.

The Contract did not include the trade-in allowance of $4,000, but instead

listed a cash down payment of $3,000, even though Plaintiff had not made any cash
down payment other than the $400 paid to Bob.
22.

The Contract listed a cash sale price of $20,350, an amount that was

approximately $2,350 more than the agreed upon price.
23.

The Contract also provided for interest at an annual percentage rate of

18.99%.
24.

Atlantic Motors never provided the Contract to Plaintiff, who never saw it.

25.

Atlantic Motors affixed Plaintiff’s electronic signature and initials onto the

Contract without Plaintiff’s knowledge or consent, and it assigned the Contract to CAC
without disclosure that the Plaintiff had not executed the Contract.
26.

Plaintiff believes, and therefore alleges, that Atlantic Motors added to the

cash price of the Vehicle a discount fee that was assessed by the finance company,
Credit Acceptance Corporation, to whom it assigned the Contract.
27.

The additional discount fee would not have been charged in a cash

transaction.
28.

Atlantic Motors failed and neglected to give Plaintiff a copy of the Retail

Installment Contract and did not provide him with any of the disclosures required under
28 U.S.C. § 1638.
29.

After he took delivery of the Vehicle, Plaintiff received an email from the

assignee of the Contract, CAC, advising him that a payment of $602 had been deducted
from his account.

4

 Case 3:16-cv-01649-RNC Document 28 Filed 12/20/16 Page 5 of 9

30.

Plaintiff called CAC to inquire as to why it had taken the payment out of

his bank account, and he learned that his monthly payments were much higher than
Atlantic Motors told him they would be.
31.

Plaintiff informed CAC that he had not been given a copy of the Contract

and requested that CAC send him a copy.
32.

In or around late May, 2016, Plaintiff received a copy of the Contract from

CAC, and he learned that he was charged more for the Vehicle than he had agreed to
pay and that it did not list his trade-in allowance, and it did not accurately reflect the
amount of the cash down payment that he had made.
33.

Plaintiff informed CAC of the foregoing, and CAC is currently the holder of

the Contract.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION
A. TRUTH IN LENDING ACT
34.

Paragraphs 1-33 are incorporated.

35.

Atlantic Motors violated TILA, because it failed to provide Plaintiff with any

of the disclosures required by 15 U.S.C. § 1638.
36.

Additionally, Atlantic Motors further violated TILA because the truth in

lending disclosures on the Contract are not accurate.
37.

Specifically, the increase to the cash price due to the discount charge

should have been disclosed as part of the finance charge but was instead included as
part of the amount financed.
38.

Additionally, there were additional sales taxes assessed in this transaction

due to the failure to properly itemize the amount finance, because if the trade-in

5

 Case 3:16-cv-01649-RNC Document 28 Filed 12/20/16 Page 6 of 9

allowance had been properly disclosed as an allowance instead of as a cash down
payment, then sales tax would not have been charged on the allowance. This additional
sales tax, which was at least $190.50, would not have been assessed in a cash
transaction and was charged as an incident to the extension of financing, and it
therefore should have been disclosed as part of the finance charge but was instead
included as part of the amount financed.
39.

Atlantic Motors violated TILA by improperly listing his trade-in as a cash

down payment, and only crediting $3,000 for the down payment even though it agreed
to give Plaintiff a trade-in allowance of $4,000.
40.

For Atlantic Motors’ TILA violations, it is liable to Plaintiff for actual

damages, plus additional damages of $2,000, and attorney’s fees and costs.
B.

CIVIL FORGERY

41.

Paragraphs 1-33 are incorporated.

42.

Atlantic Motors assigned the Contract to CAC with Plaintiff’s unauthorized

electronic signature.
43.

Atlantic Motors has falsely made, altered, forged, or counterfeited the

document and knowingly presented it as genuine to CAC , and it is liable to Plaintiff for
double his damages pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-565.

C. CONNECTICUT RETAIL INSTALLMENT SALES FINANCE ACT
44.

Paragraphs 1-33 are incorporated.

45.

Atlantic Motors violated RISFA, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 36a-770 et seq. by not

securing Plaintiff’s signature on the Contract and by not providing him with a copy.

6

 Case 3:16-cv-01649-RNC Document 28 Filed 12/20/16 Page 7 of 9

46.

Atlantic Motors’ violations of RISFA were willful within the meaning of

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 36a-786.
47.

CAC, after it had knowledge of the violations of RISFA, has retained the

benefits, proceeds, profits, or advantages from the violation or otherwise has ratified the
violation.
48.

Claimant is entitled to an order that CAC and Atlantic Motors are barred

from recovering any finance, delinquency, or collection charge on the Contract pursuant
to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 36a-786.

D. CONNECTICUT UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT
49.

Paragraphs 1-48 are incorporated.

50.

Atlantic Motors’ actions as alleged above also violated CUTPA.

51.

Atlantic Motors’ refusal and failure to sell the Vehicle for the agreed upon

price is a per se violation of CUTPA pursuant to Conn. Agency Reg. § 42-110b-28(b)(1).
52.

Atlantic Motors acted unfairly and deceptively in violation of CUTPA.

53.

As a result of Atlantic Motors’ conduct, Plaintiff suffered an ascertainable

loss, including but not limited to, the amounts that he overpaid for the Vehicle, the lost
$400 cash payment that was not credited to the purchase, and the amount that he was
not credited for his trade-in
54.

Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees.

7

 Case 3:16-cv-01649-RNC Document 28 Filed 12/20/16 Page 8 of 9

Wherefore, Plaintiff claims actual damages, double damages, TILA statutory
damages of $2,000, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and an order that
there is no finance charge collectible under the contract. Plaintiff also seeks an order
permitting him to make the back payments under the Contract without interest.

PLAINTIFF, MICHAEL A. CRISCIONE

By: /s/ Daniel S. Blinn
Daniel S. Blinn (ct02188)
Consumer Law Group, LLC
35 Cold Spring Rd. Suite 512
Rocky Hill, CT 06067
Tel. (860) 571-0408
Fax. (860) 571-7457
dblinn@consumerlawgroup.com

8

 Case 3:16-cv-01649-RNC Document 28 Filed 12/20/16 Page 9 of 9

CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that on this 20th day of December, 2016, a copy of the foregoing
Amended Complaint was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to
accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by
operation of the Court’s electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept
electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this
filing through the Court’s CM/ECF System.

/s/ Daniel S. Blinn
Daniel S. Blinn

9