Lee v. Capital One Bank USA, N.A, No. 2:25-cv-540 (Feb. 24, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
D. Utah. Ryan Lee v. Capital One Bank USA, N.A
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Utah (UT)
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Decided
Feb. 24, 2026
Disposition
Dismissed
Majority
Dustin B. Pead (J.) (unanimous Court)
Ryan Lee, Plaintiff, v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.; Johnson..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 690784Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, D. Utah.Ryan Lee, Plaintiff,v.Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.; JohnsonMark, LLC; ABC Legal Services, Defendants.Case No. 2:25-cv-540 TC DBP|Filed 02/24/2026Attorneys and Law FirmsRyan Lee, Lehi, UT, Pro Se.Beth J. Ranschau, Ray Quinney & Nebeker PC, Salt LakeCity, UT, for Defendant Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.Christopher J. Rogers, Johnson Mark LLC, Taylorsville, UT,for Defendant Johnson Mark, LLC.Brent R. Baker, Alexander Curtis Baker, Spencer Fane LLP,Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant ABC Legal Services.District Judge Tena CampbellREPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONDustin B. Pead United States Magistrate Judge*1 This matter comes before the court on Defendant ABCLegal Services Motion to Dismiss.1 For the reasons set forthbelow, the court recommends ABC Legal's Motion to Dismissbe gratned.2BACKGROUNDPro se Plaintiff Ryan Lee filed this matter initially on July 29,2025, and on that same day, he also filed a First AmendedComplaint.3 The matter arises from Plaintiff's dissatisfactionwith process service in a state court collection action whereDefendant Capital One Bank is seeking to collect on a debt.In May 2025, ABC Legal was hired to serve Plaintiff witha summons and complaint in the collection action. ABCLegal attempted service at what was believed to be Plaintiff'sresidence, but it turned out to be the address of his ex-spouse. Multiple attempts were made at this incorrect address.Eventually, ABC Legal's process server executed an affidavitof service indicating that substitute service was completedby delivering the documents to an individual at that address.This was Plaintiff's ex-spouse. The affidavit was filed withthe Utah state court.Plaintiff then subsequently filed this matter bringing claimsof (1) violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15U.S.C. §§ 1692d-g; (2) violation of the Fair Credit ReportingAct, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b); (3) Tortious Interference andRetaliatory Abuse of Process; and (4) Invasion of Privacy andUnauthorized Disclosure. Plaintiff seeks “compensatory andpunitive damages under the FCRA, FDCPA, and state tortlaw, and requests injunctive and declaratory relief to preventcontinued procedural abuse by creditors and collectors whoact without standing or due diligence.”4LEGAL STANDARDI. Legal Standard for Pro Se PlaintiffMr. Lee proceeds pro se. The court therefore reviewsPlaintiff's “pleadings and other papers liberally and hold[s]them to a less stringent standard than those drafted byattorneys.”5 While making allowances for “failure to citeproper legal authority, confusion of various legal theories,poor syntax and sentence structure, or unfamiliarity withthe pleading requirements,”6 the court will not constructarguments on Plaintiff's behalf and Plaintiff must comply with“the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”7 A“pro se litigant is still obligated to follow the requirements ofFed.R.Civ.P. 4.”8II. Legal Standard for Motion to Dismiss Failure toState a Claim*2 To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “a complaint mustcontain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state aclaim for relief that is plausible on its face.’ ”9 A court should“assume the factual allegations are true and ask whether it isplausible that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.”10 Althoughthe factual allegations of the complaint need not be detailed,they must contain more than a “formulaic recitation of theelements of a cause of action”11 and conclusory statementsare “not entitled to be assumed true.”12 Indeed, “[t]he court's
Ryan Lee, Plaintiff, v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.; Johnson..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2function on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is not to weigh potentialevidence that the parties might present at trial, but to assesswhether the plaintiff's complaint alone is legally sufficient tostate a claim for which relief may be granted.”13DISCUSSIONABC Legal argues Plaintiff's claims should be dismissedfor two independent reasons. First, Plaintiff failed toproperly serve ABC Legal with the summons and complaint.Plaintiff's process server left the documents with an HRemployee at ABC Legal's Seattle headquarters who is notauthorized to accept service. Second, ABC Legal asserts thatpresuming service was proper, this matter should be dismissedbecause Plaintiff's claims fail to state a claim against ABCLegal. Specifically, the First Amended Complaint containsconclusory allegations about the alleged “false affidavit.”Rule 12(b)(5) governs motions to dismiss for insufficientservice of process. In opposing a motion to dismiss forinsufficient service of process, plaintiff bears the burden tomake a prima facie case that he has satisfied the statutoryand due process requirements to permit the court to exercisepersonal jurisdiction over a defendant. Here Plaintiff arguesthe Rule 12(b)(5) motion is now moot because Plaintiffperfected service on ABC Legal's registered agent within thetime frame required under Federal Rule 4(m). ABC Legalopposes this argument asserting the authority relied on byPlaintiff, Espinoza v. United States14 and Pell v. Azar NutCo.,15 does not support Plaintiff's position. The court agreesthat Plaintiff's authority is misplaced. However, the court haswide discretion in considering a Rule 12(b)(5) motion. Thisincludes dismissing a case if it appears unlikely that properservice can be instituted. Or quashing service and givinga plaintiff an opportunity to re-serve the defendant.16 Thecourt finds Plaintiff reserved ABC Legal and therefore thecourt will deny the 12(b)(5) motion and move to address ABCLegal's contention for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).17*3 ABC Legal argues Plaintiff's tortious interference claimfails because no contractual relationship was disrupted.The court agrees. “A party is subject to liability for anintentional interference with present contractual relations ifhe intentionally and improperly causes one of the parties notto perform the contract.”18 Liability for future contractionalrelations is similar, a party causes another party to not performa future contract. Plaintiff's allegations are general in natureand claim “lost opportunities” without much more. This isinsufficient.In similar fashion, Plaintiff's claims are insufficient toestablish a claim for abuse of legal process. “[T]o establisha claim for abuse of process, a claimant must demonstratefirst, an ulterior purpose; [and] second, an act in the useof the process not proper in the regular prosecution of theproceedings.”19 “To satisfy the ‘willful act’ requirement, aparty must point to conduct independent of legal process itselfthat corroborates the alleged improper purpose.”20 Legalprocess with a bad motive is not enough. A party must allege“a corroborating act of a nature other than legal process ....”21If legal process is used for its proper and intended purpose,but it has collateral effects, there is no abuse of process.Here, Plaintiff does not provide any willful act or any ulteriorpurpose by ABC Legal. ABC Legal sought to serve Mr. Leefor the underlying collective action. Even assuming problemswith that service, there is not enough to maintain a claim forabuse of process against ABC Legal.Next, Plaintiff's invasion of privacy and unauthorizeddisclosure claims fail. It “is not an invasion of the right ofprivacy, ..., to communicate a fact concerning the plaintiff'sprivate life to a single person or even to a small group ofpersons.”22 Plaintiff fails to allege anything close to therequired publicity element here thus these claims fail.23Finally, the claims under the FDCPA and the FCRA areeither inapplicable to ABC Legal or fail. Thus, Plaintiff's FirstAmended Complaint should be dismissed as to ABC Legal.In closing, the court notes its concern with the use of artificialintelligence (AI) in this case. ABC Legal avers that Plaintiff'suse of AI in this case undermines the discretion given toMr. Lee as a pro se party and raises serious concerns dueto the misstatements of the law and holdings in Plaintiff'scited authority. Based on these problems, ABC Legal asks thecourt to “disregard any AI-generated portions of Plaintiff'sopposition to the extent they are inaccurate or hallucinated”and to the extent Mr. Lee “relies primarily on such contentwithout providing specific factual support for its claims.”24Judges have increasingly sanctioned attorneys and parties forusing generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, to draft legaldocuments that contain fabricated cases, fake citations, or“hallucinated” legal arguments. For example, in Lexos MediaIP, LLC v. Overstock.com, Inc.,25 a Judge in this Circuit
Ryan Lee, Plaintiff, v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.; Johnson..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3fined multiple attorneys for submitting documents in thecase that contained defective legal citations created usinggenerative AI.26 Another court in this Circuit noted thatRule 11 and possible sanctions apply to the use of AI.27Pro se parties are not immune and have also been sanctionedfor false citations in filings.28 The court declines ABCLegal's invitation regarding Plaintiff's AI generated materials.However, the admonition of the Seventh Circuit is appropriatehere for Mr. Lee:*4 As pro se litigants employ AI to assist with courtfilings, a basic reminder seems wise. Accuracy and honestymatter. Indeed, the submission of a legal filing constitutesa representation to a court and, as the Federal Rulesof Civil Procedure put the point, both attorneys andunrepresented parties are certifying “that to the best ofthe person's knowledge, information and belief, formedafter an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,”the “factual contentions have evidentiary support” andthe “legal contentions are warranted by existing law ora nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, orreversing existing law or for establishing new law.” Fed.R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2), (3); .... all litigants—represented andunrepresented—must read their filings and take reasonablecare to avoid misrepresentations, factual and legal.29Plaintiff is admonished to take greater care to avoidmisrepresentations in his filings or face possible sanctions.RECOMMENDATIONFor the reasons set forth above, the undersignedRECOMMENDS that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss underRule 12(b)(6) be GRANTED and that this action beDISMISSED.30NOTICE TO PARTIESCopies of this Report and Recommendation are being sentto all parties, who are hereby notified of their right toobject.31 The parties must file any objection to this Reportand Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of service.“[A] party's objections to the magistrate judge's report andrecommendation must be both timely and specific to preservean issue for de novo review by the district court of forappellate review.”32 Failure to object may constitutionwaiver of the objections upon subsequent review.DATED this 24 February 2026.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2026 WL 690784Footnotes1ECF No.2This matter is referred to the undersigned from Judge Tena Campbell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)for disposition of all matters. ECF No. 36.3Redacted First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 9.4First Amended Complaint at 3.5Trackwell v. United States, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted).6Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Hall v. Bellmon, 935F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (alteration omitted)).
Ryan Lee, Plaintiff, v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.; Johnson..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.47Serna v. Irvine, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33171, at *4 (D. Colo. Feb. 28, 2023) (citation omitted); see alsoOgden v. San Juan Cnty., 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994) (requiring a pro se litigant to “comply with thefundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure.”).8DiCesare v. Stuart, 12 F.3d 973, 980, 1993 WL 524388 (10th Cir. 1993).9Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)).10Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063, 1068 (10th Cir. 2009).11Ashcroft, 556 U.S at 678 (quoting Bell, 550 U.S. at 555).12Id. at 664.13Miller v. Glanz, 948 F.2d 1562, 1565 (10th Cir. 1991).1452 F.3d 838 (10th Cir. 1995).15711 F.2d 949 (10th Cir. 1983).16See Pell, 711 F.2d at 950, n.2; Lasky v. Lansford, 76 F. App'x 240, 242 (10th Cir. 2003) (concluding the districtcourt did not abuse its discretion for dismissing the complaint for failure to properly serve the defendants);SMHG Phase I, LLC v. Eisenberg, No. 1:22-CV-00035-DBB-JCB, 2024 WL 1578193, at *6 (D. Utah Mar. 15,2024), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:22-CV-00035, 2024 WL 1406498 (D. Utah Apr. 2, 2024).17See, e.g., Gallan v. Bloom Bus. Jets, LLC, No. 19-CV-3050-WJM-SKC, 2020 WL 4904580 (D. Colo. Aug. 20,2020) (denying Rule 12(b)(5) motion where process was properly served on the defendants only 9 days afterthe deadline passed); SMHG Phase I, LLC 2024 WL 1578193, at *7 (recommending denying the motion todismiss for insufficient service and allowing an extension for proper service).18St. Benedict's Dev. Co. v. St. Benedict's Hosp., 811 P.2d 194, 201, 1991 WL 76472 (Utah 1991).19Segment Consulting Mgmt., LTD. v. Streamline Mfg., LLC, No. 2:19-CV-933 TS-EJF, 2020 WL 907154, at*3 (D. Utah Feb. 25, 2020) (citation modified) (quoting Anderson Dev. Co. v. Tobias, 116 P.3d 323, 341(Utah 2005)).20Hatch v. Davis, 147 P.3d 383, 390 (Utah 2006).21Id.22Shields v. Pro. Bureau of Collections of Maryland, Inc., 55 F.4th 823, 829 (10th Cir. 2022) (citation modified).23See id.24Reply at 3, ECF No. 37.25No. 22-2324-JAR, 2026 WL 265581 (D. Kan. Feb. 2, 2026).26Id. at *17.27Coomer v. Lindell, No. 22-CV-01129, 2025 WL 1865282, at *3 (D. Colo. July 7, 2025) (collecting cases).
Ryan Lee, Plaintiff, v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.; Johnson..., Slip Copy (2026) © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.528Chumpitaz-Morales v. Bondi, No. 25-9527, 2026 WL 382144, at *4 (10th Cir. Feb. 11, 2026) (finding thepro se parties’ brief misrepresents the holdings of several cases and the court may sanction parties whomake such misrepresentations); Grant v. City of Long Beach, 96 F.4th 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 2024) (dismissingappeal because of fabricated citations); Ali v. IT People Corp., Inc., No. 2:25-CV-10815, 2025 WL 2682622,at *3 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 19, 2025) (sanctioning pro se party $200 for each misrepresentation in a filing).29Jones v. Kankakee Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 164 F.4th 967, 970 (7th Cir. 2026).30Sheldon v. Vermonty, 269 F.3d 1202, 1207 n.5 (10th Cir. 2001) (explaining that dismissal with prejudiceis appropriate where a plaintiff's amended pleadings fail to cure the deficiencies in his claims); Creamer v.Washburn L. Sch., No. 19-CV-2044-CM-TJJ, 2019 WL 2647682, at *3 (D. Kan. Apr. 24, 2019) (“Plaintiff hasalready filed an Amended Complaint that also fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, soit appears it would be futile to allow Plaintiff to amend her complaint again.”), report and recommendationadopted, No. 19-2044-CM-TJJ, 2019 WL 2646660 (D. Kan. June 27, 2019); Carey v. Avis Budget Car Rental,LLC, No. 13-CV-0326-CVE-FHM, 2013 WL 5744754, at *7 (N.D. Okla. Oct. 23, 2013) (“Plaintiff has previouslybeen given leave to amend her complaint. Plaintiff's amended complaint, like her original complaint, fails tostate a claim. The Court finds that granting plaintiff leave to amend her complaint a second time would befutile.”).31See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).32United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop. Known As 2121 East 30th Street, Tulsa, Okla., 73 F.3d 1057,1060 (10th Cir. 1996).End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access