Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > Robinson v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp.

Robinson v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp.

Case Date: 07/28/2000
Court: 1st District Appellate
Docket No: 1-98-3041 Rel

                                                                                                                                               FOURTH DIVISION
                                                                                                            August 24, 2000

No. 1-98-3041

EMMA J. ROBINSON AND LATANYA
KEMP,

          Plaintiffs-Appellants,

          v.

TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION,
AND POINT-ONE TOYOTA, EVANSTON,
AND RIVER OAKS TOYOTA,

          Defendants-Appellees.

 )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)		 APPEAL FRO THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF
COOK COUNTY.


No. 95 M3 3372


HONORABLE
MICHAEL B. GETTY,
JUDGE PRESIDING.

JUSTICE HALL delivered the opinion of the court upon rehearing:

Plaintiffs, Emma J. Robinson and Latanya Kemp, appeal from the dismissalwith prejudice of their second amended complaint. Plaintiffs sued defendants,Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, Point One Toyota, Evanston, and River OaksToyota, contending that motor vehicle lease agreements between plaintiffs anddefendants violated various federal and state laws. Plaintiffs sought relieffor themselves and for a class of people similarly situated. For thefollowing reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for furtherproceedings.

On July 6, 1993, plaintiff Emma Robinson entered into a 48- monthclosed-end motor vehicle lease agreement with defendant River Oaks Toyota. OnMay 14, 1993, plaintiff Latanya Kemp entered into a similar 42-month leaseagreement with defendant Point One Toyota, Evanston. Both leases wereassigned to defendant Toyota Motor Credit Corporation (Toyota).

Prior to the pendency of this case, plaintiffs were members of a classaction entitled Mortimer v. River Oaks Toyota, Inc., No. 91 L 18043(Mortimer), which involved similar claims against Toyota. Plaintiffs optedout of the Mortimer class action and settlement. On August 31, 1995,plaintiffs filed an eight-count complaint against defendants, alleging thatthe lease agreements entered into between plaintiffs and defendants violatedthe federal Consumer Leasing Act (15 U.S.C.