Logan v. LVNV Funding, LLC
U.S. District Court, District of Utah · D. Utah · Utah bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se plaintiff filed an Opposition the defense alleged contained AI-hallucinated quotations; defense moved to strike under Rule 12(f).
Consequence
Motion to strike denied as procedurally improper. Court issued AI warning and pointed to defense's served Rule 11 motion as proper vehicle.
Lesson
Rule 12(f) is not the right tool for AI-hallucinated content in an opposition brief; use a properly served Rule 11 motion.
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- Logan v. LVNV Funding, LLC, No. 2:25-cv-00848-AMA-JCB (D. Utah Nov. 5, 2025) (Allen, J.)
- Decided
- November 5, 2025
Summary
Pro se plaintiff Ross Logan filed a debt-collection-related action against LVNV Funding, LLC; Resurgent Capital Services, L.P.; and Johnson Mark, LLC. After Logan secured a default certificate based on defective summonses (issued without the Court's seal or the Clerk's signature), the defendants appeared and moved both to set aside the default and to dismiss for insufficient process. Defendant Johnson Mark, LLC also filed a Motion to Strike Logan's Opposition under Rule 12(f), alleging that the Opposition contained "AI-hallucinated case quotations." District Judge Ann Marie McIff Allen issued a Memorandum Decision and Order on November 5, 2025 setting aside the default and quashing service.
- AI tool:
- Generative AI generally; specific tool not named in the order
What sanction did the court impose?
Default certificate set aside as to all defendants; service quashed; motions to dismiss denied as moot; Logan's motion for default judgment denied as moot. Motion to Strike denied without prejudice on the procedural ground that "there is no provision in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for motions to strike motions and memoranda." The court nonetheless wrote: "the Court does wish to make clear that the Court has serious concerns about the allegations that Plaintiff's Opposition contains AI-hallucinated case quotations and warns Plaintiff to refrain from any improper use of AI in the course of this litigation." The court flagged that the AI sanctions question could be addressed through a properly served Rule 11 motion that the defense represented it had already served on Logan.
Why does Logan v. LVNV Funding, LLC matter for law firms using AI?
Logan v. LVNV Funding is the earliest entry in the D. Utah AI-citation cluster covered by this database (November 5, 2025), predating the February-March 2026 Pead and Kohler orders by three to five months. The procedural posture is unusual: the AI question arrives via a defense Motion to Strike under Rule 12(f), which fails on its threshold because Rule 12(f) reaches only “pleadings” within the meaning of Rule 7(a) and does not authorize striking motions or memoranda. The court denies the motion to strike “without prejudice in the event that Defendant can point to another theory under which striking Plaintiff’s Opposition would be authorized,” and points to Rule 11 as the operative path: defense counsel had represented that they served a Rule 11 motion on Logan, and the court invites them to “move forward with that motion in the future.” The substantive AI warning is brief but unambiguous: the court has “serious concerns” about the allegations and “warns Plaintiff to refrain from any improper use of AI in the course of this litigation.” This warning is structurally similar to the conditional admonishment in Odunze v. Lake Effect (Feb. 4, 2026, Romero, Mag. J.), in that the court does not find that AI was used; rather, the court flags the allegation and reserves judgment for a properly framed sanctions motion. Among the four chambers represented in the D. Utah cluster (Allen, Pead, Kohler, Romero), Allen is the only district judge in the database; the other three are magistrates. For partners reading the case, the operational lesson is procedural: when you suspect opposing counsel or a pro se litigant has filed an Opposition with AI-hallucinated content, do not file a Rule 12(f) motion to strike. Serve a Rule 11 safe-harbor letter, wait 21 days, and then file the motion separately. Cross-reference: Odunze v. Lake Effect (D. Utah Feb. 4, 2026) (Romero, Mag. J.) (conditional AI admonishment in footnote 3); Lee v. Capital One Bank USA, N.A. (D. Utah Feb. 24, 2026) (Pead, Mag. J.); Vernieri v. Dyno Nobel Ams. (D. Utah Mar. 4, 2026) (Pead, Mag. J.); Harris v. Washington Cnty. (D. Utah Mar. 24, 2026) (Kohler, Mag. J.).
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Do not use Rule 12(f) to strike AI-hallucinated content in motions or memoranda; the rule applies only to pleadings, and chambers will deny the motion as procedurally improper even when the underlying allegation is meritorious.
- When you intend to seek Rule 11 sanctions for opposing AI hallucinations, comply strictly with the 21-day safe-harbor service requirement and file a separate motion; the Logan court explicitly flagged Rule 11's procedural prerequisites as the operative path.
- Note that Judge Allen's chambers in D. Utah will issue an AI-related warning even when denying the procedural motion; the warning has substantive weight even though it is technically dictum, and will be cited against the litigant in any future Rule 11 hearing.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
- Whether the Rule 11 motion was ultimately filed and the resulting disposition are not visible from the order itself; the November 5, 2025 order is procedural rather than dispositive on the AI question.