Navarro v. Wells Fargo & Company

Background

Sergio Navarro, Theresa Gamage, Dayle Bulla, and Jane Kinsella sued Wells Fargo & Company and other defendants, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Wells Fargo moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of standing or, alternatively, under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. On March 24, 2025, the court granted Wells Fargo’s motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of standing.

Request to Amend and Reconsider

The plaintiffs later asked for permission to seek reconsideration of the dismissal order. They argued that the court had failed to address a request in a footnote of their opposition brief for an opportunity to amend the complaint if the court dismissed it. They also argued that the court had incorrectly ruled that monetary relief was unavailable under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3).

Wells Fargo argued that the request to amend was procedurally improper because the plaintiffs had not submitted a proposed amended complaint and a redline comparison as required by the District of Minnesota’s local rules. Wells Fargo also argued that any error concerning monetary relief would not affect the result because the court had independently found that the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were too speculative to establish standing.

Court’s Analysis

The court agreed that the plaintiffs’ original request to amend, made only in a footnote, was procedurally deficient. The court nevertheless explained that leave to amend should generally be freely given when justice requires. It found no undue delay or bad faith, and the plaintiffs had not previously been given an opportunity to amend. Although the plaintiffs had not submitted a proposed amended complaint, the court concluded that allowing amendment in the existing case would be more efficient than requiring a separate, potentially duplicative lawsuit.

The court also concluded that any prejudice to Wells Fargo was reduced by addressing the issues in the existing case and creating a fuller record for a possible appeal. It therefore exercised its discretion to overlook the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the local amendment procedures.

Disposition

The court GRANTED the plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend their complaint. In all other respects, it DENIED the plaintiffs’ request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The court VACATED the judgment entered on March 24, 2025, so the plaintiffs could preserve issues related to the dismissal order for possible appeal. The court did not decide whether its earlier ruling about monetary relief under Section 1132(a)(3) was wrong.

The plaintiffs must file an amended complaint within 21 days of the order. Wells Fargo must answer or file a Rule 12 motion within 21 days after the amended complaint is filed.