Foley v. Capital One, N.A.

Background

Joseph W. Foley sued Capital One, N.A. for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, breach of contract, negligence, and deceptive and bad-faith business practices. With the court’s permission, Foley filed a motion for partial summary judgment before discovery ended. Summary judgment is a ruling that resolves a claim or issue when the evidence shows there is no genuine dispute requiring a trial.

On June 26, 2025, the court issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Foley’s motion be denied. The narrow issue was whether Foley could be personally liable for Capital One credit-card accounts of his corporate entities even if he had never signed an agreement accepting personal liability. The court previously answered that legal question yes: Foley could potentially be liable under the customer agreements that Capital One said governed the accounts.

The court also stated that the agreements before it were generic and might or might not apply to Foley’s business accounts. Whether they applied was a disputed factual issue for discovery. Capital One had the burden to prove that the agreements specifically applied to the accounts and that Foley had notice of their terms.

Motion for Reconsideration

Foley moved for reconsideration. Reconsideration is an exceptional request asking the court to revisit an earlier ruling because it overlooked controlling authority or important information, because the law changed, because new evidence became available, or because the earlier ruling contained a clear error or caused serious unfairness.

The court concluded that Foley did not meet this strict standard. It found that he identified no overlooked controlling decisions or data, intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice. The court also rejected Foley’s attempt to redefine the earlier motion as an evidentiary inquiry into whether he had received or agreed to the customer agreements. The earlier motion had asked whether personal liability was legally possible without a signed agreement, not whether the agreements ultimately applied to Foley’s accounts.

The court further rejected Foley’s argument that Capital One was required to submit proof during the partial summary-judgment motion that the agreements governed his accounts. The court had previously ordered Capital One to file the agreements it claimed governed the accounts, but had not required evidentiary proof or sworn statements at that stage.

Ruling

The motion for reconsideration was DENIED. The court did not resolve the factual question of whether the customer agreements applied to Foley’s business accounts or whether Foley had notice of their terms. The court said discovery should proceed fairly and noted that discovery was scheduled to close on July 29, 2025. It stated that Foley could request permission to seek summary judgment after fact discovery if he had a basis to do so.

Effect of the Order

The order left the earlier denial recommendation in place and allowed the case’s discovery process to continue. It did not decide the ultimate liability question in Foley’s lawsuit.