Keith Davidson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the definitions of \debt collector\ set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) are alternative
• affirming dismissal of FDCPA claim against Capital One because it is not a debt collector
• finding plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege defendant’s principal purpose was debt collection under the FDCPA
• finding that the complaint provided a basis for the court to plausibly infer that debt collection constituted some of the defendant’s business, but it failed to provide any basis for the court to infer that debt collection served as the “principal purpose” of the defendant’s business
• affirming dismissal of complaint where the complaint’s “factual matter establishes that Capital One’s collection efforts in this case related only to debts owed to it and that debt collection is only some part of, and not the principal purpose of, Capital One’s business”
• “The statutory text is entirely transparent.... [A] person must regularly collect or attempt to collect debts for others in order to qualify as a ‘debt collector’ under the second definition of the term’’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).