If you searched for “Rebeca Mingura Credit One Lawsuit,” you likely weren’t looking for an analysis or summary of a supposed ‘legal drama’. You were probably looking for something more to the point, perhaps more of a ‘crisis’ style explanation.
I understand the stress of being chased for debt to the point where it affects how you view the world around you. You have to factor in the next call, the next notification, the next unknown number, and the anxiety that it will be that one number you fear.
I’ve experienced those calls, except they were not from Credit One Bank, but from a debt collector pursuing an unpaid bill that I had already disputed. It is the kind of stress that clouds for decisions for the sake of your own sanity. You think maybe it is time you pick up the receiver. You think maybe if you have that conversation one more time, they might actually end it. Explaining the situation is not a guaranteed stopping point.
This is precisely what makes this case so interesting. The Rebeca Mingura Credit One Lawsuit is about more than just legal jargon and documents. The suit is about what actual, tangible, real-world, repeated contact is like and where the real life Intersection of Law meets everyday mental bandwidth.
Let’s walk through it clearly, in a way that’s actually useful.
Table of Contents
Case Update: Rebeca Mingura vs. Credit One Bank, N.A.
Here’s the clean, structured snapshot (the stuff most people are searching for):
Involved Parties
Date of Filing
August 8, 2025
Court
Northern District of California, U.S. District Court
Court Case Number
Mingura v. Credit One Bank, N.A., Case No. 4:25-cv-06712
Nature of the Case
The complaint alleges harassing phone calls and other illegal acts of debt collection harassment, including refusing to stop calling after the complainant stated her desire not to receive calls, and after her attorney sent the client a cease and desist order.
Why Is It Difficult to Not Encounter this Lawsuit?
Lawsuits such as this tend to become easily searchable due to two main factors:
If you have ever encountered a collection call, you know why it circulates. People want to know where the collection harasser crosses the line, and if they have options to consult.
The Main Allegations from Rebeca Mingura Claims
The brief outlines the lawsuit as an example of a routine, systematic, and aggressive collection practice of calling.
1. Automated and Repeated Call Harassment
One of the most important complaints is that the bank employs automated dialing technologies to make excessive phone calls. In non-legal jargon, it’s not a person deciding to call individuals one at a time, but an automated system that can do it at scale, with repetition, and for an extended period.
If a day ever comes when you think that your phone is constantly ringing, you can get what is meant by the term automation. A person can get bored and stop. A machine operates constantly.
2. Revocation of Consent: Why it Matters
According to the case summary, calls were made even after the right to make the call was revoked.
That is important to explain because the core of most consumer rights is the principle of permission, where a company has the right to do something, and you take away that right by clearly stating it, but they still continue. This greatly changes the legal aspects of the situation.
An analogy is the softest possible way to say that “giving someone your number is like giving them a key to your door, and taking that key back is withdrawing your consent. If they keep barging in, that’s not communication, that’s intrusion.”
3. Claims Under Major Consumer Protection Laws
This is where the case engages the Intersection of Law, where theoretical law meets the reality of lived experience.
The lawsuit is based on the following allegations:
FDCPA’s applicability is context and policy-dependent, particularly on whether the caller is a “debt collector” under that statute. This is typically an issue for the banks in question, and complaint theories, litigated on, and thus, are some of the reasons why there are lawsuits to test facts and definitions.
4. The “Harass, Oppress, or Abuse” Theory
The summary of the complaint states that the robocalls were designed to “harass, oppress and abuse consumers.”
This may seem extreme, and these are the actual terms in consumer protection statute and case law because the law understands that, in the absence of a communication purpose, the conduct is a “pressure to frustration.”
The Timeline That Has Been Created
The following is the timeline we previously discussed that has been folded into a more flowing format:
When people inquire as to the significance of a `cease-and-desist` letter, it is because it is a legal communication that unequivocally states the intention of the addressee to discontinue communication with the recipient, particularly when it is done by an attorney.
Current Situation: Is the Rebeca Mingura Credit One Lawsuit Ongoing?
Yes, and from the information you have provided, there appears to be active case management and it is still being processed before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Is There a Settlement for This Specific Case?
Not for the moment, according to your information provided.
Your notes indicate that there have been other settlements that appear to involve Credit One Bank, which appear to include settlements regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for the sum of $14 million that have recently been completed. There is a necessity for caution to ensure that there is no confusion as to the case at issue.
To put it as clearly as possible:
If you’re looking for the most up-to-date movement (hearings, motions, orders), the best source is the official court docket.
Can I sue Credit One for harassment?
Let’s try to understand the question people ask when they’re frustrated, angry, and trying to figure out if the law can help them: “Can I sue Credit One for harassment?”
I can’t tell you whether you can sue them (this involves facts, evidence, jurisdiction, legal opinion). What I can do is tell you what generally matters in cases like the Rebeca Mingura Credit One Lawsuit.
What Usually Favors A Consumer Harassment Case
In trying to figure out whether an act you are talking about is lawful or just annoy you, the following should help
The Harsh Reality: You Won’t Remember Everything
This is where I always get a little personal, because I learned it the annoying way.A few years back, I got repetitive calls, and I thought I’d remember the dates. I didn’t.
After a certain point, the calls become a blur, and all the dates jump together. That’s why timelines matter; it’s not because you’re lying. Stress ruins your memory.
So if you’re in the middle of something similar, start a simple log. Nothing fancy. A note on your phone with:
It’s boring. It’s also powerful.
Why This Case is Important to Other Consumers
The Rebeca Mingura lawsuits against Credit One are significant for various reasons:
A debt collector can harass you, but a debt collection system can obliterate your ability to conduct business. If a debt collection system is used too aggressively, the system can be out of control.
When lawsuits become highly public, it is not uncommon for businesses to streamline internal controls, such as revisions to dialing, consent capture, dispute management, and collection vendors.
Change is possible even before a decision is rendered in a lawsuit.
Consumers do not always know the TCPA exists until they become entangled in a web of harassing phone calls.
This type of case raises awareness for the general public, as they gain an understanding of how to document evidence, the vocabulary to use to communicate it, and the escalation procedure.
Separating Facts From the Online Noise
Many lawsuit criticisms are quite sophisticated, but the use of the digital narrative, ecosystems of platforms, storytelling, and lawsuits as culture theories can be overly simplistic.
It’s not wrong, but it can miss the point.
When users want to research Rebeca Mingura Credit One Lawsuit, they tend to look for:
So, yes, public discourse is significant, but there is something that carries more weight: Accuracy.
If you are reading about this case on social media or blogs, do not forget:
Practical Takeaways If You’re Dealing With Harassing Phone Calls
Regardless of your situation, as is the case in Rebeca Mingura’s complaints, there are steps that most consumer attorneys advise people to take (this is not legal advice):
FAQs
Q. What is the Rebeca Mingura Credit One Lawsuit?
A class action lawsuit against Credit One Bank, N.A. by Rebeca Mingura for alleged unlawful debt-collection harassment, and violation of consumer protection laws, including the TCPA, FDCPA, and more is described in the case summary.
Q. Where was the lawsuit filed?
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Q. What is the case number?
Case No. 4:25-cv-06712.
Q. Is there a settlement for this case?
Not according to the provided summary. The matter is ongoing, and there is no official settlement/claim period yet for this specific case.
Conclusion: Why People’s Interest in This Case
This case keeps drawing searches due to its straightforward story.
A person asks, “Don’t call me anymore.” Calls continue, and now there’s a legal problem.
This is the most basic example of Law and its boundaries in person. Abstract rules become concrete. How many times can someone reach out to you? What is consent? What is harassment? And what happens when a massive entity and a singular person meet over something as personal as a phone call?
If you feel like you are in a similar situation, if your phone has become a menace, document everything and educate yourself. This alone can help you feel a little more in control.
