Smith v. Lakeside Foods, Inc., 77 C 1789.
| Decision Date | 09 February 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77 C 1789.,77 C 1789. |
| Citation | 449 F. Supp. 171 |
| Parties | Sara Lyn SMITH, Plaintiff, v. LAKESIDE FOODS, INC., an Illinois Corporation, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Maureen J. McGann, Chicago, Ill, for plaintiff.
Robert L. Berkover, Chicago, Ill, for defendant.
Plaintiff, in Count II of her amended complaint, asserts a claim against defendant for alleged violations of regulations 202.4(c)(4) and 202.4(a), 12 C.F.R. 202.4(c)(4) and (d) (1977), promulgated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System pursuant to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691 et seq. (1970). She prays for declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and costs. Defendant in its answer has admitted that the credit application in question did not contain the language required by the regulations; but it has asserted, as a matter of law, that the regulations in question do not apply in the factual context at bar. Plaintiff has moved for a judgment on the pleadings as to Count II pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion has been fully briefed and, for the reasons which follow, the motion will be granted.
In evaluating a motion for judgment on the pleadings, all material factual admissions or denials of the opposing party are to be accepted. National Metropolitan Bank v. United States, 323 U.S. 454, 456-57, 65 S.Ct. 354, 89 L.Ed. 383 (1945); Beal v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Corp., 312 U.S. 45, 51, 61 S.Ct. 418, 85 L.Ed. 577 (1941). Defendant has admitted that its credit application contained neither the optional designation regarding the applicant's title, as required by regulation 202.4(c)(4), nor the conspicuous notice regarding the Federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act, as required by regulation 202.4(d), but claims that the regulations do not apply in the factual context at bar.
This court concludes that the regulations in question do apply to the facts at bar. The application of regulation 202.4(d) is limited only by the strictures present in regulations 202.1 and 202.3, none of which adversely affect plaintiff's right to relief. Regulation 202.4(c)(4), requires only that the plaintiff must have applied for a "separate account". Plaintiff states in paragraph 8 of her complaint, and defendant admits in its answer, that "On or about December 4, 1976, the plaintiff applied for credit at the Lakeside Food Grocery Store in Lake Forest, Illinois." (emphasis supplied) There is no indication from the pleadings that plaintiff applied for anything other than a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thiel v. Veneman
...thus whether they fall within the ECOA's waiver of sovereign immunity. See Anderson, 666 F.2d at 1276 ( citing Smith v. Lakeside Foods, Inc., 449 F.Supp. 171, 172 (N.D.Ill.1978)). Thus, Count 3 must be dismissed. Because it is possible that Thiel could amend, dismissal of this claim should ......
-
Manuel v. Intern. Harvester Co.
...the Court must view the facts presented by the pleadings in a manner favorable to the non-moving party. See Smith v. Lakeside Foods, Inc., 449 F.Supp. 171, 172 (N.D.Ill.1978); Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1368 at 2 See e. g. Weise v. Syracuse, 522 F.2d 397, 411 n......
-
Ricci v. Key Bancshares of Maine, Inc., Civ. No. 82-0249 P.
...Anderson v. United Finance Corp., supra; Cherry v. Amoco Oil Corp, 490 F.Supp. 1026, 1029 (N.D.Ga.1980); Smith v. Lakeside Foods Inc, 449 F.Supp. 171, 172 (N.D.Ill.1978). In accordance with the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. That the motion of defendant Key Bancshares of M......
-
Harris v. WGN Continental Broadcasting Co.
...(2d Cir.1985) (citations omitted). See also Roberts v. Northern Trust Co., 550 F.Supp. 729, 730 (N.D.Ill.1982); Smith v. Lakeside Foods, Inc., 449 F.Supp. 171, 172 (N.D.Ill.1978). If matters outside the pleadings have been submitted, we convert the motion to one for summary judgment; we giv......