Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-debt collector’s motion for summary judgment in action by plaintiff-alleged debtor alleging that defendant violated Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by filing state-court collection action on credit card account without first giving him notice of his right to cure default on said account. Record showed that plaintiff, in state-court action, had denied knowledge of, or any association with, subject credit card account at issue in state-court and instant FDCPA action. As such, Dist. Ct. could properly find that plaintiff could not proceed on his FDCPA action, since he lacked evidence that debt incurred on credit card account was for personal, family or household purposes, and therefore was “consumer debt.” Fact that billing statements showed that most charges were for purchases of less than $50 at places such as gas stations and convenience stores does not require different result, since plaintiff could not explain (due to his alleged lack of knowledge about said account) whether said purchases were for consumer as opposed to business purposes.