Claude David Chastain v. N.S.S. Acquisition Corp.

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 12, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 09-14157
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 08-81260-CV-DTKH
CLAUDE DAVID CHASTAIN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
N.S.S. ACQUISITION CORP.,
d.b.a. Bev Smith Toyota,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 12, 2010)
Before BLACK, PRYOR and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Claude David Chastain brought a putative class action
against N.S.S. Acquisition Corp. d/b/a Bev Smith Toyota alleging violations of the

-- 1 of 2 --

Truth in Lending Act, the Florida Motion Vehicle Retail Sales Finance Act, the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act, and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act.
The district court dismissed the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). (R.1-20.)
Appellant’s brief acknowledges that this case “is a virtual mirror image of
Hunter v. Bev Smith Ford, LLC,” a putative class action that was dismissed by the
district court and was pending on appeal at the time this appeal was briefed.
(Appellant’s Br. at 11.) And, Appellant makes no additional arguments to those made
in the Hunter appeal as to why the district court erred when it dismissed his
complaint.
Since this appeal was briefed, a panel of this court heard oral argument in
Hunter and issued an opinion affirming the dismissal of that case. Hunter v. Bev
Smith Ford, LLC, Case No. 08-13324 (11th Cir. Nov. 17, 2009). In this case, as we
did in Hunter, we reject Appellant’s arguments and affirm.
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --