IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-30426 United States Court of Appeals Summary Calendar Fifth Circuit

FILED July 23, 2015 LANDRY DIXON, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff - Appellant v. TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION,

Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff-Appellant Landry Dixon appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM. FACTS & PROCEEDINGS In August 2012, Dixon, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against Toyota Motor Credit Corporation (“TMCC”) and Troy Campise, the Sales Manager of Lakeside Toyota (“Lakeside”), an automobile dealership. He alleged that TMCC and Campise defrauded him by leading him to believe that a lease for a Toyota Corolla automobile would be tax exempt because the co- Case: 14-30426 Document: 00513126679 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/23/2015

No. 14-30426 lessee, DELF, Inc., was a non-profit organization for which Dixon is the registered agent and chief executive officer. Dixon alleged that he signed a lease that set the monthly payments at $312.91, but he was later informed that the payments would be $341.07 because TMCC did not recognize DELF as a tax-exempt corporate customer. Each month, Dixon paid the lower amount, which led to TMCC’s efforts to collect the difference and adverse entries on Dixon’s credit reports. Dixon’s original complaint cited no federal cause of action; construed liberally, it sounded in common law fraud. On July 17, 2013, after ruling on several dispositive motions, the district court sua sponte dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 1 The district court held that Dixon did not establish diversity jurisdiction because he did not plead the citizenship of any party and the amount in controversy was less than $75,000. The district court further held that Dixon had not established federal question jurisdiction because his complaint did not raise an issue of federal law, and a post-dismissal motion— which the district court construed as an attempt to amend the complaint—did not raise a substantial federal question. Dixon filed various motions to reconsider and for leave to amend his complaint, all of which were denied. On January 6, 2014, Dixon filed another action against TMCC, bringing a claim under the Consumer Leasing Act (“CLA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1667–1667f. After consolidating this new action with the existing one, the district court granted TMCC’s motion to dismiss on April 10, 2014. The district court held that the CLA applies only to “consumer leases”—those by natural people for the use of personal property for personal, family, or household purposes—and the lease at issue was to an organization and was not for personal, family, or household use. Dixon timely appealed the district court’s dismissal of his

1 Because the district court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction, it voided its prior orders. 2 Case: 14-30426 Document: 00513126679 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/23/2015

No. 14-30426 second complaint and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal