ABOUT THE CAPITAL ONE versus TRUMP CASE
(Actually technically the Trump v. Capital One case.)
by Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. – attorney, law professor emeritus, and author of Federal law
I haven’t written about this yet because I’m still gathering … you know… facts, but I did want to at least give you the lay of the landscape:
In March of last year (2025), Trump’s various entities, along with Eric Trump, filed a lawsuit in Florida state court against Capital One (of *course* their attorney was / is Alejandro Brito). The lawsuit was classified as a “complex business litigation” lawsuit and assigned to the complex business litigation division of the Florida court.
The next month Capital One (the defendants) had the case “removed” from state court to federal court, as the federal court had “diversity jurisdiction”, meaning, in this case, that the parties are in different states – Trump & co. in Florida, and Capital One in Virginia. That diversity provides a basis for a federal court to take over a case, removing it from state court.
Capital One filed a “12(b)(6)” motion to dismiss the suit. I know that all of the lawyers and law students out there will instantly know what that means, however for those who don’t, “12(b)(6)” refers to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure which says that if the complaint doesn’t “state a claim upon which relief can be granted” then the complaint fails and should be dismissed.
(Even though law school was decades ago for me, I still *instantly* heard Prof. Barbara Babcock’s voice in my head, teaching us about Rule 12(b)(6). She was the first female attorney ever to be appointed to the DOJ, and when a reporter asked her how she felt thinking that she might only have got the job because she was a woman she retorted “A lot better than I’d feel if I *didn’t* get the job – because I’m a woman.”)
Anyway, “Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” basically means that you can’t bring just any old gripe to the Court, you have to have a gripe about which the Court can *do* something.
Now, this motion to dismiss is *still pending*. In the interim Trump let the Court know they were going to file a new, amended complaint. So, again, the motion to dismiss is still pending.
*Also* in the interim the Court ordered a period of 90 days of discovery (sounds like a documentary, doesn’t it?)
THIS is what has led to this past week’s news stories about Capital One’s filings in which they say, among other things, that “documents and Plaintiffs’ own allegations make clear that Capital One closed Plaintiffs’ accounts for anti-money laundering (‘AML’) reasons.”
And:
“The closures were the result of months of analysis and a careful review by Capital One’s AML team in accordance with bank policies and regulatory guidance.”
They also say that their investigation started in March of 2021.
They do *not* (yet) actually accuse Trump of money laundering, but odds are very good that if the case doesn’t get dismissed that they will.
Watch for Bessent (and maybe Vought) to start leaning on Capital One in 3… 2… 1…
I do already have the Complaint, which I will include when I do the full write-up of things.
Hang in there.
My investigating, fact-gathering, and reporting is 100% reader-supported. Here are ways that you can support my reporting:
– Join Notes from the Front: It’s just $5 a month, and you will truly be supporting what I do here, plus you get the documents that I include with each post. You can do that here: https://annepmitchell.substack.com
– Support my coffee habit here: https://www.annepmitchell.com/buy-anne-a-coffee/
– Share this post
Source