Popham v. U.S. Bank National Association
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:24-cv-01070
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Popham v. U.S. Bank National Association, Judge Foster denied Popham’s motion to add a vulnerable-adult financial-exploitation claim because the amendment was legally futile.
Plaintiff Wayne G. Popham was not allowed to add the proposed Minnesota financial-exploitation claim against Steven Kalin and The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company. The order denied the motion to amend; it did not state that the existing claims were dismissed.
What happened
In Popham v. U.S. Bank National Association, Wayne G. Popham asked to add a Minnesota financial-exploitation claim against Steven Kalin and The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company. The proposed claim concerned insurance-policy loans beginning in 1999.
The court found that Popham had not plausibly alleged that he was a “vulnerable adult” under Minnesota law. He did not identify the physical or mental condition he claimed to have, explain how it limited his ability to protect himself, or allege that he could not provide adequately for his own care without assistance.
The court denied the Motion to Amend as futile. Judge Dulce J. Foster issued the order.
The detailed version
- Popham v. U.S. Bank National Association · No. 0:24-cv-01070
- Eric Tostrud
- Aug. 30, 2024
Background
U.S. Bank removed the case from Hennepin County District Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Before removal, Popham, then acting without a lawyer, had filed an amended complaint against U.S. Bank, Steven Kalin, and The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company concerning three Northwestern Mutual life-insurance policies and policy loans beginning in 1999. The existing complaint included claims for failure to disclose and breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
The court set a deadline for amended pleadings, later extended to August 14, 2024. Popham retained counsel on July 26, 2024, and filed the Motion to Amend on the extended deadline. He sought to add a claim under Minnesota Statutes section 626.557 for financial exploitation of a vulnerable adult against Kalin and The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company.
Legal standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), courts generally should allow amendments when justice requires. But a court may deny leave to amend when the proposed amendment would be futile. An amendment is futile if the proposed complaint could not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). To survive such a motion, a complaint must allege enough facts to make the claim legally plausible.
Court’s analysis
Minnesota’s statute provides a claim for a vulnerable adult who is financially exploited. The statutory definition includes a person with a physical, mental, or emotional condition that both impairs the person’s ability to provide adequately for personal care without assistance and impairs the person’s ability to protect against maltreatment.
Popham argued that he was currently 94 years old and that the alleged nondisclosures and breaches of fiduciary duty had continued for decades. The court found that the proposed complaint did not identify the alleged infirmity or explain how it impaired his ability to protect himself from maltreatment. It also did not allege facts showing that he could not provide adequately for his own care without assistance.
The court noted that Popham alleged he practiced law from 1953 through 2022, appeared as sole counsel in proceedings as recently as 2017 and 2010, and had served three terms in the Minnesota Senate. The court concluded that his age alone did not establish that he was a vulnerable adult, particularly in 1999 when the policy loans began. It held that, without an allegation of an actual infirmity, the proposed complaint lacked a required element of the claim.
Ruling
The court held that Popham could not plausibly establish that he was a vulnerable adult under Minnesota law. It therefore concluded that the proposed amendment could not survive a motion to dismiss and denied Popham’s Motion to Amend as futile. The order was signed by Dulce J. Foster, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.