Atala v. Ondeck Capital, Inc. et al Administratively Closed

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
GEORGE ATALA,
Plaintiff,
versus
ONDECK CAPITAL, INC,
et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-05708
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff George Atala proceeds here pro se. He filed
this lawsuit, asserting claims against Defendants Ondeck
Capital, Inc, ODK Capital LLC, Enova International Inc,
Headway Capital LLC, David Fisher, Sean Rahilly,
Cathleen Pugh, and Captain Capital Group, LLC, for
alleged unlawful lending and collection practices. Dkt 1.
The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Richard W. Bennett. Dkt 13.
Pending is a motion by Defendant Captain Capital
Group, LLC, to dismiss for insufficient service of process.
Dkt 29. Captain Capital maintains that Plaintiff failed to
properly serve it because service was made on a
receptionist at the office of its registered agent, rather than
an officer or other agent authorized to accept service of
process on its behalf. Dkt 31 at 5 (memorandum of law).
Judge Bennett recommends that the motion be denied.
Dkt 45. First, he determined that Plaintiff had made a
sufficient showing of valid service under New York law by
serving the office of the registered agent of Captain
Capital. Id at 9–11. Second, he concluded that, even if
service were technically deficient, actual notice to Captain
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 26, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-05708 Document 47 Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
Capital of the action and the absence of any apparent
prejudice nonetheless weighed against dismissal. Id at 11–
14. Judge Bennett thus recommended that Plaintiff be
given thirty days to cure any defect in service. Id at 14.
Plaintiff later served Captain Capital on June 11, 2026.
Dkt 46 (return of service).
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of
a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically
objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC §636(b)(1)(C); see
also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir
1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other
portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no
clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v
PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
None of the parties filed objections. No clear error
otherwise appears upon review and consideration of the
Memorandum and Recommendation, the record, and the
applicable law.
The Memorandum and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkt 45.
The motion by Defendant Captain Capital Group, LLC,
to dismiss for insufficient service of process is DENIED.
Dkt 29.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on June 26, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-05708 Document 47 Filed 06/26/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2