No Harm, No Standing
Key to the dismissal was the judge’s finding that Matula failed to show he suffered any injury, a requirement for standing in federal court. The judge also rejected the idea that Matula was entitled to extra payments into his account, ruling that such corrective contributions would require a demonstrated error, which was never alleged.
“Matula’s attempt to seek extra payments that he was not promised under the plan must be rejected,” wrote Tunheim, underlining that entitlement must be grounded in plan terms, not in speculative interpretation.
Legal Teams React, Next Steps Uncertain
Vahan Mikayelyan, one of Matula’s attorneys, said the team respects the court’s opinion but is weighing their options.
“We believe plaintiff does have standing to challenge the use of forfeited 401(k) plan assets,” Mikayelyan told Law360, noting that other courts have ruled differently in similar cases.
Wells Fargo, represented by heavyweight firms Proskauer Rose LLP and Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, declined to comment.
Matula was represented by Haffner Law PC and Nolan Thompson Leighton & Tataryn PLC.
