Chapman v. TD Bank N.A.
3:24-cv-00536
| S.D.W. Va | May 2, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Adam Chapman alleges TD Bank, N.A. (“TD Bank”) used misleading business names to collect an outstanding credit card debt.
- Chapman received monthly account statements and a demand letter, referencing names like “Samsung Financing” and “TD Retail Card Services,” rather than “TD Bank, N.A.”
- He sued under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA), the West Virginia Collection Agency Act (WVCAA), and alleged an illegal joint venture, seeking class action status.
- TD Bank moved to dismiss all claims, arguing its conduct was lawful and the use of alternative names did not violate the statutes.
- Chapman withdrew his WVCAA and joint venture claims, leaving only his WVCCPA claims related to the use of business names.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are periodic account statements attempts to collect debt under WVCCPA? | Statements aim to induce payment and thus constitute debt collection. | Statements are merely billing required by law, not collection efforts. | Court: Such statements may be debt collection; not dismissed. |
| Is use of non-true-name (like “Samsung Financing” or “TD Retail Card Services”) in collecting debt a WVCCPA violation? | Only “TD Bank, N.A.” may be used by TD Bank; other names violate WVCCPA. | Trade names are commonly used and clearly linked to TD Bank. | Use of non-true-names plausibly violates WVCCPA; not dismissed. |
| Did TD Bank falsely imply government sponsorship or act as an unlicensed debt collector (WVCCPA § 46A-2-127(e))? | Use of alternative names implies state-bonded status or unlicensed activity. | Banks are exempt from WVCAA; no implication of government affiliation. | No plausible claim; dismissed. |
| Sufficiency of Notice in Complaint | TD Bank sought dismissal for insufficient notice. | Withdrew argument on reply. | Moot; not addressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (standard for facial plausibility in pleadings)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (complaint factual allegations accepted as true on motion to dismiss)
- Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231 (courts draw reasonable inferences for plaintiff at 12(b)(6))
- Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298 (legal conclusions not accepted as true at 12(b)(6))
- Goines v. Valley Cmty. Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159 (considering integral documents at motion to dismiss without summary judgment conversion)
- State ex rel. McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, Inc., 461 S.E.2d 516 (WVCCPA is remedial, construed liberally)
- Martinez v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 803 S.E.2d 582 (definition and construction of remedial statutes in WV)
- State ex rel. 3M Co. v. Hoke, 852 S.E.2d 799 (wide construction of WVCCPA in context of consumer protection)