Capital One Faces Florida Class Action Over Alleged Late-Night Debt Collection Calls
Capital One Financial Corp. is facing a proposed class action lawsuit in Florida alleging that the company placed debt collection calls to a consumer during nighttime hours without obtaining prior consent. The complaint raises questions about how creditors manage the timing of collection communications and comply with state-specific consumer protection requirements.
Plaintiff David Paquin filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging that Capital One contacted his cellphone after 9 p.m. while attempting to collect a consumer debt. According to the complaint, the calls violated provisions of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) governing when consumers may be contacted about debts.
The lawsuit, Paquin v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Case No. 8:26-cv-02118, seeks class certification, statutory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and other remedies. The allegations have not been proven, and the filing of a complaint does not establish that Capital One violated the law.
Plaintiff Alleges Two Collection Calls Occurred After 9 P.M.
According to the lawsuit, Capital One began attempting to collect the consumer debt in December 2025. Paquin alleges that one of the disputed calls occurred on April 20 at approximately 9:51 p.m.
The complaint claims the unexpected communication interrupted Paquin while he was resting and caused him to wake from sleep. He alleges that he spent time reviewing the communication afterward and experienced continued restlessness that affected his sleep and left him fatigued the following day.
Paquin further alleges that Capital One contacted him again on April 24 at approximately 9:08 p.m. The complaint characterizes the calls as part of a deliberate collection approach rather than isolated communications.
Capital One’s response to the specific allegations was not detailed in the source report.
Proposed Class Would Cover Florida Consumers
Paquin is seeking to represent a class consisting of people with Florida addresses who allegedly received telephone calls from Capital One in connection with the collection of consumer debts during restricted nighttime hours.
The proposed class would cover qualifying calls made between 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. during the 24 months preceding the filing of the lawsuit.
At this stage, however, the case remains a proposed class action. The court would need to determine whether the requirements for class certification are satisfied before the case could proceed on behalf of the broader group described in the complaint.
Lawsuit Focuses on Florida Debt Collection Protections
Central to the lawsuit is the FCCPA, Florida’s state-level framework regulating certain debt collection practices. Paquin alleges that Capital One contacted him during hours restricted by Florida law without first receiving his consent to do so.
The complaint further contends that Capital One has the technological ability to prevent collection calls during restricted hours but allegedly failed to use those controls. Paquin argues that the nighttime communications were intentional and that Capital One knew consumers had not consented to receiving calls during those hours.
Those assertions remain allegations that will be subject to the litigation process.
The case illustrates the importance of considering state-specific collection requirements alongside federal rules. For creditors, debt collectors and other organizations communicating with consumers, call timing can be an important component of compliance policies, communication systems and operational controls.
Plaintiff Seeks Damages and Changes to Calling Practices
Paquin is asking the federal court to certify the proposed class and declare that Capital One’s alleged conduct violated Florida debt collection law. The lawsuit also seeks statutory damages and an injunction that would prohibit the company from engaging in similar alleged nighttime calling practices in the future.
In addition, the plaintiff is seeking attorneys’ fees and has requested a jury trial.
Paquin is represented by Scott D. Owens of Scott D. Owens P.A., along with Andrew Grim and Richard Peck of Peck Law Firm P.A.
The lawsuit adds to ongoing scrutiny surrounding consumer communications and debt collection practices. Although the court has not determined whether the allegations have merit, the case may be worth watching for financial institutions and receivables organizations managing consumer outreach across multiple jurisdictions.
