In Dacumos v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, 2018 WL 2059562 (W.D.Wash., 2018), Judge Martinez dismissed a credit reporting claim against an automobile finance company deriving from an earlier settlement where the company allegedly agreed not to collect further on the Account.
Plaintiff also contends that TMCC breached Paragraph 2.b. of the Agreement by reporting Plaintiff’s loan balance as $13,593.00 instead of $0. See FAC ¶ 4.22. That paragraph does not waive or discharge the $13,593.00 loan balance as to Plaintiff. Further, that paragraph is silent about credit reporting. Dkt. #52, Ex. A at ¶ 2.b. Instead, that paragraph simply states that both P&F and TMCC will cease any collection efforts against Plaintiff and will not file any lawsuits against her for that debt. Defendants have complied with that provision. Neither has continued collection efforts and neither has filed a further lawsuit pertaining to that debt.Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff attempts to reassert her theory that the dismissal of TMCC’s collection action discharged her liability for the debt, this Court has already rejected that theory and dismissed any claim based on that theory with prejudice. Dkt. #33. Specifically, this Court has already determined that the state court order of dismissal does not preclude TMCC from reporting a charged off debt, and does not require it to report a $0 balance. Dkt. #33 at 6-9. For all of these reasons, Plaintiff’s First and Third Causes of Action against TMCC and Third Cause of Action against P&F must be dismissed.