Lexis Nexis - Case Brief

Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Law School Case Brief

Walsh v. United States Bank, N.A. - 851 N.W.2d 598 (Minn. 2014)


The Supreme Court of Minnesota reviews de novo whether a complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief. The supreme court accepts the facts alleged in the complaint as true and construes all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.


Plaintiff Laura L. Walsh defaulted on the mortgage on her residential property in Minneapolis. The mortgage holder, defendant U.S. Bank, N.A., commenced a non-judicial foreclosure proceeding. U.S. Bank attempted to serve an adult at Walsh's property, identified as "Jane Doe," by the process server, with a notice of the impending foreclosure sale and related documents. However, according to the process server, Jane Doe refused to cooperate. Ultimately, the process server left the foreclosure-related documents "in a secure place" in the door. Nothing in the record indicated whether U.S. Bank attempted service again. After the property was sold at a foreclosure sale, Walsh filed a lawsuit in Minnesota state court seeking to vacate the sale because of ineffective service of the foreclosure-related documents in violation of Minn. Stat. § 580.03 (2012) and Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.03(a). She alleged that, when U.S. Bank attempted to serve the documents, the only persons residing at the property were Walsh and her male roommate. Walsh further alleged that neither she nor her roommate was served with the documents. Nowhere in her complaint did Walsh explain who Jane Doe was or why Jane Doe was at Walsh's property when U.S. Bank attempted to serve the documents. U.S. Bank filed a motion to dismiss Walsh's complaint pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. U.S. Bank relied on the plausibility standard from Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, which required that a complaint contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." U.S. Bank argued that Walsh's complaint failed to allege any facts that nudged her claim across the line from conceivable to plausible. Using the Twombly plausibility standard, the district court dismissed Walsh's complaint with prejudice. The district court reasoned that Walsh failed to establish any evidence or facts giving rise to a plausible claim for relief. All of the appropriately considered facts fail to established improper service. Walsh appealed. In an unpublished opinion, the court of appeals reversed and remanded. According to the court of appeals, the district court erred by dismissing Walsh's complaint because it was possible for Walsh to produce evidence consistent with her legal theory. U.S. Bank appealed.


Did the plausibility standard announced in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal apply to civil pleadings in Minnesota state court?




The state supreme court affirmed the appellate court's judgment. The court held that the plain language of Minn. R. Civ. P. 8.01 made clear that the rule meant today what it meant at the time other cases were decided, and a claim was sufficient against a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim if it was possible on any evidence which might be produced, consistent with the pleader's theory, to grant the relief demanded. U.S. bank did not present a compelling textual reason to overrule the earlier cases. Walsh's complaint satisfied the traditional pleading standard for civil actions in Minnesota as it contained two key factual assertions that, when accepted as true, adequately contested personal and substitute service. Jane Doe, who, as Walsh admitted, was served with the documents, was not the same person as Walsh, and her complaint adequately contested personal service.

Access the full text case Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class