Guardian Angel Credit Union v. MetaBank et al

Filing 128

ORDER denying 84 Motion to Amend Complaint. So Ordered by Judge Paul J. Barbadoro. (jna)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Guardian Angel Credit Union,
on its own behalf and on
behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated
v.

Case No. 08-cv-261-PB
Opinion No. 2011 DNH 112

Metabank and
Meta Financial Group

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Guardian Angel Credit Union (“Guardian Angel”)
has filed a motion to amend its complaint against MetaBank and
Meta Financial Group, Inc. (collectively, “MetaBank”) to add a
claim for punitive damages.

I deny Guardian Angel‟s motion

because I determine that its proposed amendment would be futile.

I. BACKGROUND
Guardian Angel represents a class of plaintiffs that
attempted to purchase Certificates of Deposit (“CDs”) from
defendant MetaBank between 1995 and 2007.

In 2008 Guardian

Angel and the other class plaintiffs learned that their CDs had

been fraudulently issued without authorization by an employee of
MetaBank, Charlene Pickhinke, who converted many of the funds to
her own personal use.1
Guardian Angel‟s initial class-action complaint asserted
causes of action against MetaBank for breach of contract,
negligent hiring, supervision, and retention, and vicarious
liability for Pickhinke‟s wrongful acts.

Guardian Angel now

seeks to amend its complaint to add a claim for punitive
damages.

It contends that it discovered new information

supporting this claim while taking a deposition of Sandra
Hegland, MetaBank‟s Director of Human Resources.

Hegland

testified that she raised concerns regarding Pickhinke to
MetaBank‟s audit department in 2000 and 2002 based on the fact
that Pickhinke did not appear to be taking all of her vacation
time.

Not taking vacations is a possible sign that an employee

is perpetrating a fraud because the employee‟s constant presence
at the office may be required to continue the fraud.

There are

apparently no documents available regarding the actions taken by
the audit department in response to these concerns.

The facts underlying this case are set out in more detail in my
Memorandum and Order on the parties‟ cross-motions for summary
judgment (Doc. No. 127).
1

2

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A motion for leave to amend should not be granted if the
amendment “would be futile or reward undue delay.”

Abraham v.

Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst., 553 F.3d 114, 117 (1st Cir.
2009).

“If leave to amend is sought before discovery is

complete and neither party has moved for summary judgment, the
accuracy of the „futility‟ label is gauged by reference to the
liberal criteria of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”
Hatch v. Dep‟t for Children, Youth and Their Families, 274 F.3d
12, 19 (1st Cir. 2001).

“If, however, leave to amend is not

sought until after discovery has closed and a summary judgment
motion has been docketed, the proposed amendment must be not
only theoretically viable but also solidly grounded in the
record.”

Id.

In that type of situation, an amendment is

properly classified as futile unless the allegations of the
proposed amended complaint are supported by substantial
evidence.”

Id.2

The procedural posture of this motion to amend is unusual
because, although it was first filed before summary judgment
motions, the parties have since filed their cross-motions for
summary judgment. Because Guardian Angel has had every
opportunity to supplement its motion to amend with additional
factual information since its initial filing and has chosen not
to, I will apply the more rigorous “substantial evidence”
standard in this Order. See Hatch, 274 F.3d at 19 (applying the
2

3

III.

ANALYSIS

Iowa law allows punitive damage claims where “the conduct
of the defendant from which the claim arose constituted willful
and wanton disregard for the rights. . . of another.”
§ 668A.1.3
claim.

Iowa Code

Negligent conduct alone does not support such a

Cawthorn v. Catholic Health Initiatives Iowa Corp., 743

N.W.2d 525, 529 (Iowa 2007) (“Punitive damages serve as a form
of punishment, and as such, mere negligent conduct is not
sufficient to support such a claim.”).

Punitive damages can be

available against a corporation for the acts of its employees,
but “only when the corporate employer wrongfully authorized,
contributed to, or ratified the outrageous conduct which caused
plaintiff‟s injury.”

Briner v. Hyslop, 337 N.W.2d 858, 861

(Iowa 1983).
This “complicity rule” still requires that the employer act
with legal malice, and thus requires at least reckless conduct,

substantial evidence standard where “all the pertinent evidence
is in the record” and the plaintiff “does not suggest that
additional discovery would reveal new facts sufficient to put
the case in a different light”). In any event I find that the
proposed claim for punitive damages would also be futile under
the more relaxed 12(b)(6) standard given the lack of facts
pleaded in support of the claim.
I determined in my Order on Class Certification, Doc. No. 58,
that Iowa substantive law applies in this case.
3

4

not mere negligence.

See Seraji v. Perket, 452 N.W.2d 399, 401

(Iowa 1990) (“It is the reckless conduct of the employer that
the [complicity] rule seeks to punish and deter.”).

An employer

acts recklessly “if it intentionally does or fails to do
something it has a duty to do or not to do.”

Id. at 402.

The facts that Guardian Angel has identified in its motion
to amend do not provide substantial evidence to support a claim
for punitive damages.

It is undisputed that MetaBank was

completely unaware of Pickhinke‟s scheme and acted quickly to
investigate as soon as it became aware of the fraud in 2008.
Hegland‟s testimony does little to add to the plausibility of a
claim for punitive damages.

As an initial matter, Hegland‟s

decision to contact MetaBank auditors was entirely appropriate
and demonstrated the opposite of the institutional recklessness
that Guardian Angel must plead to establish a claim for punitive
damages.
Most importantly, however, Guardian Angel does not plead
any facts showing that MetaBank responded inappropriately to
Hegland‟s complaints.

Cawthorn v. Catholic Health Initiatives

Iowa Corp., 743 N.W.2d 525 (Iowa 2007) is instructive in this
area.

There the court found that a punitive damages claim

against a hospital for the actions of one of its surgeons was
5

not supported by the evidence and was rightfully withheld from a
jury.

743 N.W.2d at 529.

This was despite evidence that the

hospital had received a prior complaint about the doctor‟s care.
Id.

The court noted that “[t]hough evidence certainly exists

that Mercy Hospital was aware that Dr. Miulli's competency was
at issue, the evidence does not support a finding of willful and
wanton conduct, as required by section 668A.1(1)(a).”

Id.

While a later investigation did suspend the doctor‟s license,
the “substance of the investigation” was not known by the
hospital at the time of the surgery.

Id.

Here, as in Cawthorn, the mere fact that MetaBank had some
evidence that Pickhinke‟s conduct may have been suspect does
not, without more, support a finding of willful and wanton
conduct.

Hegland‟s complaint was based solely on the relatively

minor concern that Pickhinke had not been taking all of her
vacation time, and Guardian Angel does not identify any
additional facts that could have suggested to the audit
department the true nature or scope of her scheme.

Any

deficiencies in MetaBank‟s investigation would rise only to the
level of negligence.

Therefore Guardian Angel‟s claim for

punitive damages, which requires more than mere negligence, is
not supported by substantial evidence.
6

IV. CONCLUSION
For all of the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the
proposed amendment would be futile and deny Guardian Angel‟s
motion to amend its complaint (Doc. No. 84).
SO ORDERED.
/s/Paul Barbadoro
Paul Barbadoro
United States District Judge
July 14, 2011
cc:

Christopher T. Meier, Esq.
Randall F. Cooper, Esq.
Bruce Felmly, Esq.
Christine B. Cesare, Esq.
Howard M. Rogatnick, Esq.
Ronald Joshua Bliss, Esq.
Cathryn E. Vaughn, Esq.

7