CRAZY CIVIL COURT ← Back
NULL COUNTY • CS-2026-2497

Capital One, N.A. v. Janet Slaten

Filed: Feb 25, 2026
Type: CS

What's This Case About?

Let’s get straight to the juicy part: a woman in Oklahoma is being sued by a bank—not some sketchy debt collector, not a loan shark, but Capital One, one of the largest financial institutions in the country—for just over six thousand bucks because she didn’t pay her Discover card bill. Six thousand three hundred and ninety-six dollars and seventy-nine cents, to be exactly petty about it. That’s not chump change, sure, but it’s also not “I robbed a bank” money. This is the kind of sum that could cover a decent used car down payment, a solid chunk of a wedding, or, you know, several years’ worth of therapy after being sued by a faceless corporate entity with more lawyers than your entire neighborhood has people.

Meet Janet Slaten. We don’t know much about her, and that’s okay—this isn’t Oprah, it’s civil court. But we do know this: at some point, she applied for a Discover credit card. Maybe it was during a late-night infomercial break. Maybe she needed a new fridge after the old one started growling at her. Maybe she just wanted to build credit. Whatever the reason, she signed on the dotted line, agreed to the Discover Cardmember Agreement—which, let’s be honest, no one reads in full, but legally counts as a binding contract—and was granted a shiny new line of credit. Bliss, right? For a while, probably. She swiped. She borrowed. She bought stuff. Life happened. And then, at some point… she stopped paying.

Enter Capital One, N.A., the plaintiff in this thrilling courtroom drama. Now, here’s where it gets weirdly corporate: Capital One is suing Janet… but not because she owed them money. Nope. They’re suing because they merged with Discover Bank. That’s right—somewhere in a boardroom filled with people in stiff suits and even stiffer haircuts, someone said, “Hey, let’s buy Discover and absorb millions of credit card accounts, including this one random lady in Oklahoma who’s behind on her payments.” So now, Capital One is the proud legal owner of Janet Slaten’s debt, like a repo man for financial obligations. They didn’t issue the card. They didn’t hand her cash. But thanks to the magic of corporate mergers, they now have the right to chase her down like a bounty hunter with a W-2.

According to the filing—short, sweet, and about as emotionally engaging as a spreadsheet—Janet entered into a contract (the card agreement), agreed to pay it back in monthly installments, and then… didn’t. That’s it. That’s the whole story. No dramatic heist. No embezzlement. No secret offshore accounts. Just life getting hard, money getting tight, and a bill that didn’t get paid. And now, Capital One wants its money. Not through a polite email. Not with a series of increasingly passive-aggressive voicemails. No, they’ve gone full legal route, filing a formal petition in the District Court of Oklahoma County, demanding judgment for $6,396.79, plus interest, plus court costs, plus the right to subpoena her employment records from the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission—because nothing says “we believe in second chances” like asking the state to rat out your job so they can garnish your wages.

Now, let’s break down what’s actually happening here, legally speaking. Capital One is claiming breach of contract. That sounds serious, like someone broke a sacred oath, but in reality, it just means Janet didn’t follow the terms of the agreement she signed when she got the card. And yes, that agreement probably said things like “you must pay us back” and “if you don’t, we will come for you.” Standard credit card fare. The legal system treats these contracts like gospel, even though most people sign them without reading a single word, often while scrolling on their phone at 2 a.m. But a contract is a contract, and if you don’t uphold your end, the other side can sue. It’s not personal. It’s just business. Cold, calculating, very lawyered-up business.

So what does Capital One want? $6,396.79. Is that a lot? Well, yes and no. For a bank that reported $13 billion in revenue last quarter, it’s basically pocket lint. It’s the financial equivalent of someone demanding you pay back the $6.50 you owe them for a burrito from three years ago. But for an individual? Yeah, that’s real money. That’s rent. That’s car repairs. That’s a medical bill. That’s the kind of amount that can tank a credit score, trigger wage garnishment, and haunt someone for years. And yet, here we are—Capital One, a financial titan, deploying seven attorneys (yes, seven) to collect this debt. Stephen L. Bruce, Everette C. Altdoerffer, Leah K. Clark, Clay P. Booth, Roger M. Coil, Adam W. Sullivan, and Katelyn M. Conner—all of them listed like characters in a legal drama, ready to battle over a sum that probably doesn’t even cover their combined hourly rates. It’s like sending a SWAT team to recover a lost library book.

And what’s especially wild? There’s no demand for a jury trial. No dramatic courtroom showdown. This isn’t Judge Judy. This is a quiet, bureaucratic takedown—paperwork, subpoenas, and the slow, grinding machinery of debt collection. If Janet doesn’t respond, Capital One wins by default. If she does, she’ll likely be asked to prove she doesn’t owe the money… which, unless she’s claiming identity theft or some clerical error, is going to be tough. Because, let’s face it—she probably did use the card. She probably did rack up charges. And now, she’s on the hook.

So here’s our take: the most absurd part of this case isn’t that someone got sued for credit card debt. That happens every day. The absurdity lies in the scale mismatch. A multinational bank with more resources than most small countries, represented by a small army of attorneys, chasing down one woman for less than seven grand. It’s not about the money—it’s about the principle, or at least that’s what they’ll claim. But really, it’s about the system: a well-oiled machine designed to extract every last dollar from consumers, no matter how small the amount, no matter how hard life gets. And yet… we can’t help but root for Janet. Not because she’s definitely in the right—maybe she went on a shopping spree and ghosted the bill. But because we’ve all been there. That sinking feeling when the statement arrives. The dread of the collection call. The shame of falling behind. And now, her name is in a court filing, forever part of the public record, all because she couldn’t pay a credit card.

This isn’t a murder mystery. There’s no twist ending. No smoking gun. Just a woman, a credit card, and a bank that won’t let it go. And honestly? That’s the real crime.

Case Overview

$6,397 Demand Petition
Jurisdiction
District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma
Relief Sought
$6,397 Monetary
Plaintiffs
  • Capital One, N.A. business
    Rep: Stephen L. Bruce, Everette C. Altdoerffer, Leah K. Clark, Clay P. Booth, Roger M. Coil, Adam W. Sullivan, Katelyn M. Conner
Defendants
Claims
# Cause of Action Description
1 breach of contract defaulted on Discover card

Petition Text

269 words
THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA CAPITAL ONE, N.A. Successor by merger to Discover Bank Plaintiff, vs. JANET SLATEN Defendant Case No P E T I T I O N COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Capital One, N.A., successor by merger to Discover Bank, and for its cause of action against the Defendant JANET SLATEN (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) alleges and states as follows: 1. That the Defendant entered into an agreement referred to as a “Discover Cardmember Agreement” with the Plaintiff whereby the Plaintiff agreed to extend a revolving line of credit to the Defendant for cash advances or the purchase of goods and services. 2. The Defendant agreed to pay the account balance plus finance charges and other charges and fees in monthly installments according to the terms of the above referenced agreement. 3. The Defendant defaulted under the terms of the agreement referred to in paragraph 1 above. 4. The Defendant is currently indebted to Plaintiff for charges made under the above referenced agreement in the sum of $6396.79. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant in the amount of $6396.79, with interest at the statutory rate from the date of judgment until paid, and costs of this action. Plaintiff further requests an order directing the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission to produce employment information of the judgment debtor(s) pursuant to 40 O.S. § 4-508(D). Stephen L. Bruce, OBA #1241 Everette C. Altdoerffer, OBA #30006 Leah K. Clark, OBA #31819 Clay P. Booth, OBA #11767 Roger M. Coil, OBA #17002 Adam W. Sullivan, OBA #35748 Katelyn M. Conner, OBA #366601 Attorneys for Plaintiff P.O. Box 808 Edmond, Oklahoma 73083-0808 (405) 330-4110 | [email protected]
Disclaimer: This content is sourced from publicly available court records. Crazy Civil Court is an entertainment platform and does not provide legal advice. We are not lawyers. All information is presented as-is from public filings.