Imholte v. US Bank, National Association

Background

Brian Imholte alleged that he and his former wife obtained a loan from US Bank, defaulted, and became subject to two lawsuits and resulting judgments. He alleged that the judgments were satisfied in 2014 and 2015. He further alleged that, in 2019, “Defendant Lawgix” served him with a new summons and complaint seeking to collect the same debt. According to Imholte, he confirmed with the Ramsey County District Court and a US Bank representative that the debt had been resolved, but collection efforts continued.

Imholte asserted three claims against US Bank: intrusion upon seclusion, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution. US Bank moved under Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim, seeking dismissal with prejudice of Counts II and III. The court considered only the claims against US Bank in that motion.

Count II: Intrusion Upon Seclusion

Under Minnesota law, intrusion upon seclusion requires an intentional intrusion, a highly offensive intrusion, and an intrusion into a matter in which the person has a legitimate expectation of privacy. US Bank argued that merely filing a lawsuit and serving process could not meet that standard and that Imholte had not alleged an intrusion into a private matter.

The court held that the allegations against US Bank did not provide enough detail to make it plausible that US Bank’s conduct was highly offensive to a reasonable person. The complaint did not explain whether or when the second lawsuit was dismissed or describe additional action taken by US Bank. The court therefore dismissed Count II without prejudice as to US Bank for failure to state a claim.

Count III: Abuse of Process

Under Minnesota law, abuse of process requires an ulterior purpose and an act using legal process to obtain a result outside the scope of the proceeding. The court explained that filing a lawsuit alone is generally insufficient and that the plaintiff must allege use of the court’s process to obtain a collateral advantage.

The court found that Imholte alleged only that US Bank sought to collect a debt. Although Imholte argued that US Bank’s actual purpose was to scare or pressure him into paying, the court limited its review to the complaint and concluded that the complaint did not adequately allege an improper purpose or use of process to obtain a result outside the lawsuit’s scope. The court dismissed Count III without prejudice.

Disposition

The order states that US Bank’s motion to dismiss Counts II and III was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Count II was dismissed without prejudice with respect to US Bank, and Count III was dismissed without prejudice. The opinion does not state that Count IV was dismissed or otherwise resolve the malicious-prosecution claim. The court also declined to consider Lawgix Lawyers’ request to dismiss Count II against it because that request did not comply with the applicable local rule.