Dettner v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Background

Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and Lovelyn Adinig moved to dismiss David A. Dettner’s complaint. Dettner did not file a response. The court decided the motion based on the written filings and vacated the scheduled hearing.

The complaint asserted nine causes of action:

The complaint referred to funds held in an irrevocable trust. A footnote states that Dettner alleged his mother was the trust’s primary beneficiary and that he and two siblings were secondary beneficiaries.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court held that the fraud, misrepresentation, and deceit claim did not identify the allegedly false or misleading statements, who made them, when or where they were made, why they were false, or facts supporting detrimental reliance. The negligent-misrepresentation claim likewise failed to identify the statements and facts supporting reliance.

The conversion claim failed because the complaint did not allege facts showing that either defendant converted funds held in the trust. The breach-of-contract claim failed to identify the agreement provisions allegedly breached or facts showing that either defendant breached them. The promissory-estoppel claim failed to identify a promise made by either defendant or facts showing detrimental reliance.

The claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing failed because Dettner did not allege the relevant contract terms or conduct frustrating his rights under that contract. The negligence claim failed to allege that either defendant breached a duty owed to Dettner. To the extent Dettner was alleging that one defendant was the trust’s trustee, the complaint also did not allege a trustee’s breach of duty. The breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim similarly failed to allege that a trustee breached an obligation under the trust or another source of duty. Finally, the aiding-and-abetting claim failed because the complaint did not allege sufficient facts showing that an underlying breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, misappropriation, or fraud occurred.

The court noted that Adinig separately argued she was not subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of California and stated that she had never acted as the trustee identified in the complaint or spoken to Dettner. The court did not separately decide the personal-jurisdiction arguments because it found them intertwined with the merits and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint. The order allowed Dettner to file a First Amended Complaint to cure the identified deficiencies by October 17, 2025. The court also continued the case-management conference from November 21, 2025, to January 16, 2026, and required a joint case-management statement by January 9, 2026. Judge Maxine M. Chesney signed the order.