No. 19-6172
Samantha Delane Rajapakse v. Credit Acceptance Corporation, et al.
IFP
Tags: auto-lenders auto-lending consumer-protection consumer-protection-laws credit-reporting fair-credit-reporting fourth-amendment fraud payment-histories payment-history repossession wrongful-repossession wrongful-seizure
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2019-12-06
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does the courts have jurisdiction to give auto lenders immunity from the Consumer Protection Laws enacted by congress when evidence in the court records presents inconsistent, inaccurate payment histories, Fraud on the account, establishing wrongful seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
Question Presented Does the courts have jurisdiction to give auto lenders immunity from the Consumer Protection Laws enacted by congress when evidence in the court records presents inconsistent, inaccurate payment histories, Fraud on the account, , establishing wrongful seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. J 2
Docket Entries
2020-02-27
Case considered closed.
2019-12-09
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until December 30, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
2019-11-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/6/2019.
2019-11-01
Application (19A477) denied by Justice Sotomayor.
2019-10-24
Application (19A477) for a stay pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.
2019-10-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 6, 2019)