Lagac v. Capital One, N.A., No. 2:26-cv-02964-RGK-MAA (May 22, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
Gilbert M. LAGAC v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
May 22, 2026
Disposition
Vacated
Lagac v. Capital One, N.A., Slip Copy (2026) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 1454205Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, C.D. California.Gilbert M. LAGACv.CAPITAL ONE, N.A. et al.Case No. 2:26-cv-02964-RGK-MAA|Filed 05/22/2026Attorneys and Law FirmsGilbert M. Lagac, West Hollywood, CA, Pro Se.Hunter R. Eley, Doll Amir and Eley LLP, Los Angeles, CA,for Defendant Capital One, N.A.Regina Marie Slowey, Barron and Newburger PC, AuburnHills, MI, for Defendant Zwicker and Associates P.C.Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re: DefendantCapital One's Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff's Motion toRemand [DEs 38, 46]R. GARY KLAUSNER., UNITED STATES DISTRICTJUDGEI. INTRODUCTION*1 On March 19, 2026, Gilbert M. Lagac (“Plaintiff”) fileda First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in the Los AngelesCounty Superior Court against Capital One, N.A., successorby merger to Discover Bank (“Capital One”); Clarity DebtResolution Inc. (“Clarity”); Wahib Joseph Al-Mashini (“Al-Mashini”): and Zwicker & Associates, P.C. (“Zwicker”).Plaintiff's claims arise from his engagement of debt settlementservices that failed to resolve an outstanding debt, resultingin a collection action against him. Plaintiff asserts sixteenclaims. Two of these claims invoke federal law, both ofwhich are brought under 12 U.S.C. § 5531 of the ConsumerFinancial Protection Act (“CFPA”). On March 19, 2026,Capital One removed the case to this Court on the basis offederal question jurisdiction.Presently before the Court are (1) Capital One's Motion toDismiss the FAC and (2) Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. Forthe following reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion toDismiss in part and REMANDS the case to state court forfurther proceedings. In light of this ruling, Plaintiff's Motionto Remand is moot.II. FACTUAL BACKGROUNDThe following facts are alleged in the FAC, unless otherwisenoted:On some unspecified date, Plaintiff incurred a debt owed toDiscover Bank, which resulted in a collection action againsthim in state court. On December 12, 2023, Plaintiff enteredinto a “Customer Service Agreement” with Clarity for debtsettlement services. During the settlement process, Clarityengaged in conduct that obstructed settlement negotiationsand resulted in a breakdown of the settlement process.Subsequently, on February 24, 2025, Plaintiff contactedZwicker, counsel for Discover Bank, in an effort to settlethe debt directly. Discover Bank rejected the proposal anddemanded terms Plaintiff could not afford.The following day, Plaintiff filed an answer to DiscoverBank's collection action. In his answer, Plaintiff describedClarity's fraud and potential sabotage of the settlementnegotiations. Despite this notice and an April 2025consent order requiring Discover Bank to implementenhanced oversight of third-party relationships, DiscoverBank continued litigating the collection action withoutinvestigating or otherwise addressing the misconduct.Additionally, although Discover Bank merged into CapitalOne, effective May 18, 2025, Zwicker continued litigatingthe collection action in the name of “Discover Bank” forapproximately seven months, concealing the merger fromboth the state court and Plaintiff. Zwicker eventually movedto substitute Capital One as plaintiff in the collection action onDecember 30, 2025. During that same seven-month period,Capital One extended unsolicited credit offers to Plaintiffdespite the pending collection action.III. JUDICIAL STANDARDA. Motion to DismissUnder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 8(a), acomplaint must contain a “short and plain statement of theclaim showing that the [plaintiff] is entitled to relief.” Bell Atl.Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). If a complaintfails to adequately state a claim for relief, the defendant maymove to dismiss the claim under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss
Lagac v. Capital One, N.A., Slip Copy (2026) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “To survive a motion to dismiss,a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, acceptedas true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on itsface.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotingTwombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A claim is facially plausible ifthe plaintiff alleges enough facts to allow the court to draw areasonable inference that the defendant is liable. Id. A plaintiffneed not provide detailed factual allegations, but must providemore than mere legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.However, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a causeof action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do notsuffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.*2 When ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion, the court must acceptthe allegations in the complaint as true and construe them inthe light most favorable to the non-moving party. Cahill v.Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337–38 (9th Cir. 1996).“Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to reliefabove the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.Dismissal is “appropriate only where the complaint lacksa cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support acognizable legal theory.” Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med.Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008).B. Motion to RemandUnder the federal removal statute, a defendant may removeany case over which a federal court has original jurisdictionfrom state court to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federalcourts have original jurisdiction over civil claims arisingunder federal law. Id. § 1331. Upon removal, the defendantbears the burden of showing the federal court's jurisdiction.Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921).Courts must “strictly construe the removal statute againstremoval jurisdiction” and must remand an action “if there isany doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gausv. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).IV. DISCUSSIONA. Motion to DismissCapital One asserts that all of Plaintiff's claims fail toadequately state a claim for relief. As discussed below,the Court finds that dismissal of Plaintiff's federal claim iswarranted, and it need not address Capital One's challenge tothe remaining state claims.Plaintiff asserts claims against Capital One, Clarity, andAl-Mashini under 12 U.S.C. § 5531. This statute allowsthe Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to bring a claimagainst any person “committing or engaging in an unfair,deceptive, or abusive act or practice ... in connection withany transaction with a consumer for a consumer financialproduct or service, or the offering of a consumer financialproduct or service.” 12 U.S.C. § 5531. The statute, however,expressly authorizes only the Consumer Financial ProtectionBureau to bring a claim, and does not extend that right toprivate citizens. See Williams v. Lobel Fin. Corp., 673 F.Supp. 3d 1101, 1106 (C.D. Cal. 2023) (“[T]he CFPA doesnot provide for a private right of action.”); Goziker v. WellsFargo Bank, N.A., 2023 WL 8872294, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Oct.17, 2023) (finding that 12 U.S.C. § 5531 “lack[s]... a privateright of action” and collecting cases); Diaz v. Argon AgencyInc., 2015 WL 7737317, at *3 (D. Haw. Nov. 30, 2015)(same). Because 12 U.S.C. § 5531 does not provide a privateright of action, Plaintiff's federal claims against Capital One,Clarity, and Al-Mashini fail.1 Further, because this deficiencycannot be cured by amendment, Plaintiff's federal claims areDISMISSED with prejudice.2*3 Having dismissed all claims that provided groundsfor removal jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercisesupplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining statelaw claims and REMANDS the case to state court for allfurther proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Ove v. Gwinn,264 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A court may declineto exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-lawclaims once it has dismissed all claims over which it hasoriginal jurisdiction.”); San Pedro Hotel Co., Inc. v. City ofLos Angeles, 159 F.3d470, 478 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding thata district court is not required to provide explanation whendeclining jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)).B. Motion to RemandHaving declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction overPlaintiff's remaining claims, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand isrendered moot.V. CONCLUSIONFor the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion toDismiss the FAC [38] in part. The Court DISMISSES withprejudice all of Plaintiff's federal claims asserted in the FAC.The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction overthe remaining state law claims and REMANDS the case to
Lagac v. Capital One, N.A., Slip Copy (2026) WESTLAW   © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3state court for further proceedings. In light of this ruling,Plaintiff's Motion to Remand [46] isMOOT. Accordingly, all other pending motions, hearingsand deadlines are vacatedIT IS SO ORDERED.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 1454205Footnotes1Although this Motion to Dismiss has been brought by Capital One only, the Court addresses all of Plaintiff's federal claimsbecause resolution of each turn on the same legal question: whether there is a private right of action under 12 U.S.C.§ 5531. See Silverton v. Dep't of Treasury, 644 F.2d 1341, 1345 (9th Cir. 1981)(“A [d]istrict [c]ourt may properly on itsown motion dismiss an action as to defendants who have not moved to dismiss where such defendants are in a positionsimilar to that of moving defendants.”).2The Court notes that Plaintiff's Opposition contains citations to several cases and quotations that do not appear to exist.“Although courts make some allowances for the pro se Plaintiff's failure to cite to proper legal authority, courts may notcondone actions by a party who cites to false, nonexistent, or misleading authorities.” Meriland Keith Dillard v. CBSStudios, Inc., 2026 WL 790882, at * 11 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2026) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff is remindedthat all litigants, including those proceeding pro se, are expected to ensure the validity of all sources cited in their filings.See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b); Munoz v. United States, 28 F.4th 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2022) (“[I]t is axiomatic that pro se litigants,whatever their ability level, are subject to the same procedural requirements as other litigants.”).End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access