Rollins v. Drive-1 of Norfolk, Inc.

[David A. Szwak]

Slip Copy, 2006 WL 2519516 (E.D.Va.)

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia,
Norfolk Division.
Patrice ROLLINS, Plaintiff,
v.
DRIVE-1 OF NORFOLK, INC., and WFS Financial, Inc., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:06cv375.

Aug. 29, 2006.

ORDER AND OPINION
JEROME B. FRIEDMAN, District Judge.
*1 This matter comes before the court on defendant WFS Financial's Motion to Dismiss. After examination of the briefs and record, this court determines oral argument is unnecessary because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. The court, for the reasons set out fully herein, GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the defendant's motion to dismiss.

I. Procedural Background
On or about June 14, 2006, plaintiff Patrice Rollins filed suit in the Circuit Court for the City of Norfolk, against defendants Drive-1, a used car dealer, and WFS, a financing company. In her complaint, plaintiff alleges five separate claims against the defendants. The five claims brought by the plaintiff in her complaint are as follows: count one alleges that defendants Drive-1 and WFS violated the federal Odometer Act, 49 U.S.C. § 32705(a); count two alleges that both defendants committed fraud; count three alleges a violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, Va.Code. Ann. § 59.1-200(A)(5) and (6), against both defendants; count four alleges that both defendants are liable for breach of contract; and count five alleges conversion against defendant WFS. WFS's alleged liability for the first four counts is derivative of Drive-1's liability, in that plaintiff asserts that a rule promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC Holder Ruleâ€