United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
L. BRASHER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes to the Court on appeal from the Bankruptcy
Court's order dismissing Ray Moore's
(“Plaintiff”) Amended Complaint against
Automotive Finance Corporation (“Defendant”) for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Having reviewed the record, the parties' briefs, and
applicable law, this Court affirms.
following facts are taken from Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint. See Doc. 2-12.
was in the car business and declared bankruptcy. Plaintiff
owed Defendant a sum of money, and that debt was discharged
in the bankruptcy in 2016.
two years after the bankruptcy, Plaintiff and a business
partner organized a new company to purchase automobiles at
dealer or wholesale prices and to resell those cars to
consumers for a profit.
new company attempted to gain access to physical and virtual
automobile auction sites through an entity known as
AuctionAccess. AuctionAccess is the entity through which an
automotive dealer must obtain credentials to purchase
wholesale automobiles at hundreds of auctions across North
America (including Canada and Mexico). It is the number one
dealer credentialing system for the wholesale auction
industry in North America. The AuctionAccess card is a
dealer's gateway into the wholesale auction physical and
online lanes and a tool for AuctionAccess' auction
partners to verify photo IDs, proper dealer licenses and
other credentialing documents necessary to conduct business
in the wholesale industry. AuctionAccess controls access,
through its credentialing system, to Adesa and Manheim, which
are the largest and most significant automobile wholesale
and/or remarketing companies in North America.
denied Plaintiff, his partner, and his new company access
through the credentialing system. A representative of
AuctionAccess informed them that Defendant had blocked them
from obtaining buyer credentials. Specifically,
“AuctionAccess denied or rejected [Plaintiff's]
applications or requests based upon a directive or
instruction from Defendant.” (Doc. 2-12 ¶ 29). The
representative arranged for Plaintiff and Defendant to
discuss the reasons for the block.
and Defendant had the following conversation. Defendant
advised Plaintiff that he owed a substantial amount of money.
Plaintiff argued that the debt was discharged in the
bankruptcy. Defendant advised that it was under no obligation
to allow Plaintiff to obtain buyer credentials from
AuctionAccess. Defendant suggested that it would remove its
block for an amount of money. Plaintiff suggested one
thousand dollars. Defendant said “make it two thousand
and we have a deal.” (Doc. 2-12 ¶ 40). Defendant
later confirmed by email that it would “accept $2,
000.00 in consideration for informing Auction Insurance
Agency that the outstanding matter with [Defendant] has been
resolved.” (Doc. 2-12 ¶ 43).
sued Defendant for violating the bankruptcy discharge in 11
U.S.C. § 524(a). The Bankruptcy Court initially
dismissed the Complaint without prejudice. After Plaintiff
amended the Complaint, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed the
Amended Complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.
Court has jurisdiction over this appeal under 28 U.S.C.