Schlegel Ex Rel. Schlegel v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “the complaint fails to provide any factual basis from which we could plausibly infer that the principal purpose of Wells Fargo’s business is debt collection” or “that Wells Fargo regularly collects debts owed to someone other than Wells Fargo”
• affirming dismissal, in part, because plaintiff’s “complaint makes no factual 26 allegations from which we could plausibly infer that Wells Fargo regularly collects debts owed to 27 someone other than Wells Fargo”
• affirming dismissal, in part, because plaintiff’s “complaint makes no factual 15 allegations from which we could plausibly infer that Wells Fargo regularly collects debts owed to 16 someone other than Wells Fargo”
• affirming dismissal, in part, because plaintiff’s 9 “complaint makes no factual allegations from which we could plausibly infer that Wells Fargo 10 regularly collects debts owed to someone other than Wells Fargo”
• affirming dismissal, in part, because plaintiff’s “complaint makes no factual 26 allegations from which we could plausibly infer that Wells Fargo regularly collects debts owed to 27 someone other than Wells Fargo”
• affirming dismissal, in part, because plaintiff’s “complaint makes no factual 9 allegations from which we could plausibly infer that Wells Fargo regularly collects debts owed to 10 someone other than Wells Fargo”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).