El, Souradji Tunkashila v. Baxter Credit Union

Background

Plaintiff El, Souradji Tunkashila, representing himself, filed this lawsuit on January 14, 2026, against Defendant Baxter Credit Union (Baxter) under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. TILA is a federal consumer-protection statute enacted in 1968 that requires creditors to make meaningful disclosures of credit terms before consumers become obligated on credit accounts. Mr. Tunkashila's operative pleading — his Second Amended Complaint — alleged that he applied for and received two consumer credit card accounts from Baxter: one in May 2017 and one in June 2021. He alleged that in connection with both accounts, Baxter failed to disclose material credit terms — including the annual percentage rate (APR), finance charges, and the method for calculating balances — before he opened the accounts, as required by TILA. He alleged that Baxter provided card-member agreements disclosing those terms only after he was already contractually obligated. He further alleged that he performed under both account agreements through May 2025, and that he did not discover and could not have discovered the absence of the required disclosures until approximately 2025.

Legal Standard

Baxter moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Under this standard, the complaint must contain enough facts to make a claim "plausible on its face" (Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)). The court accepts all well-pleaded factual allegations as true but does not accept conclusory statements or bare recitals of legal elements (Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)). Because Mr. Tunkashila is self-represented (pro se), the court applied the more lenient pleading standard appropriate for pro se litigants, though he was still required to allege sufficient facts to support his claims.

A statute-of-limitations defense is normally an affirmative defense that a defendant must plead and prove; it is ordinarily not a basis for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) unless the face of the complaint itself makes clear that the claims are untimely.

TILA's One-Year Statute of Limitations

TILA requires that civil claims for damages based on disclosure violations be filed "within one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation." 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e). Under Eighth Circuit precedent (Dryden v. Lou Budke's Arrow Finance Co., 630 F.2d 641 (8th Cir. 1980)), the one-year period begins when the parties' credit contract is formed — that is, when the consumer becomes contractually obligated.

Here, the alleged violations occurred when Mr. Tunkashila opened the credit card accounts: May 2017 and June 2021. He therefore had until May 2018 to file his claim related to the first account and until June 2022 for the second. He did not file until January 14, 2026 — approximately eight years after the first violation and nearly five years after the second. The court found that the face of the Second Amended Complaint itself established the limitations defense.

Equitable Tolling Arguments

The court recognized that a plaintiff may avoid dismissal on limitations grounds by alleging facts sufficient to invoke equitable tolling — a doctrine that can pause (toll) the running of a deadline under appropriate circumstances. Courts have found that TILA's limitations period may be tolled when a defendant engaged in fraud or concealment that prevented the plaintiff from discovering the violation.

Disposition

The court granted Baxter's motion to dismiss. The Second Amended Complaint was dismissed with prejudice, meaning the case is closed and Mr. Tunkashila may not refile these claims. The court ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.

Note on Scope

The court's ruling rested entirely on the statute of limitations and did not reach the underlying merits of whether Baxter actually violated TILA's disclosure requirements.