Ammerman v. Capital One Bank

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma granted Capital One Bank’s motion to dismiss Bradley Ammerman’s amended complaint and denied his motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The court dismissed with prejudice claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, concluding that the FDCPA did not apply to Capital One, the OCPA claim was inadequately pleaded and preempted, and the proposed FCRA amendment would be futile. The order was entered on March 5, 2026.

Holdings

1. Capital One was not a debt collector within the meaning of the FDCPA because the alleged debt was owed to Capital One itself, and the complaint did not allege that Capital One used another name indicating that a third party was collecting the debt. The FDCPA claim was therefore dismissed with prejudice.
2. The amended complaint failed to state a plausible Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act claim because its single allegation that Capital One engaged in deceptive and unfair trade practices by attempting to enforce an unverified debt was a conclusory recital of a cause of action.
3. The FCRA preempted the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act claim because the claim was based on subject matter regulated by 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2 concerning the responsibilities of persons furnishing information to consumer reporting agencies.
4. The amended complaint failed to state a private claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a) and failed to state a claim under § 1681s-2(b) because it alleged only that Ammerman, rather than a consumer reporting agency, notified Capital One of the dispute.
5. Leave to amend was properly denied as futile because the proposed second amended complaint merely recited the elements of a § 1681s-2(b) claim and did not identify the inaccurate information disputed with the consumer reporting agencies or allege facts showing that Capital One's investigation was unreasonable.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Capital One was a debt collector subject to the FDCPA when collecting a debt allegedly owed to Capital One itself.
2. Whether the amended complaint stated a plausible claim under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act based on alleged reporting of an unverified debt.
3. Whether the FCRA preempted the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act claim insofar as it was based on furnishing information to consumer reporting agencies.
4. Whether the amended complaint stated a private claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a) or a plausible claim under § 1681s-2(b).
5. Whether the proposed second amended complaint stated a plausible § 1681s-2(b) claim or whether amendment would be futile.

Disposition

dismissed