Duran v. Werfel, Danny and IRS

Background

Victor Daniel Duran, who was representing himself, sued Danny Werfel and the Internal Revenue Service over alleged actions occurring on or around November 30, 2023. Duran alleged that he appointed “Defendant” as a fiduciary trustee through a notice to settle his outstanding obligations, but that the defendant failed to discharge his debts. Duran alleged that he was harmed because he continued to be pursued for the same purported debts.

Duran’s first complaint had previously been dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because it did not identify a legally recognizable theory or facts supporting a claim. Duran then filed a First Amended Complaint asserting breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and declaratory or injunctive relief. The amended complaint named Werfel and the Internal Revenue Service in its caption but referred throughout to only a singular “Defendant,” without clarifying which defendant was being referenced.

Motion to Dismiss

The United States, on behalf of the defendants, moved to dismiss. The defendants argued that the claims were frivolous, barred by federal statutes, and unsupported by a waiver of sovereign immunity. The court stated that the amended complaint’s vagueness prevented it from determining whether the action was frivolous or whether the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court instead granted the motion under Rule 12(b)(6). That rule permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a claim on which relief can be granted. The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief, giving the defendant fair notice of the claim and the grounds supporting it.

The court found that Duran’s amended complaint did not meet that requirement. It did not identify whether Werfel or the Internal Revenue Service was the defendant referred to in the allegations. It also did not explain what fiduciary duty was owed to Duran, what specific conduct breached that duty, or when the alleged breaches occurred. The court concluded that Duran had not corrected the lack of factual detail identified when the original complaint was dismissed.

Other Proposed Claims

In opposition to the motion to dismiss, Duran sought to assert new claims for breach of contract, violation of the Fifth Amendment, and ultra vires government action. He also submitted 34 pages of documents. The court held that, at the motion-to-dismiss stage, it was limited to the allegations in the First Amended Complaint and could not consider claims or evidence raised for the first time in the opposition.

The court further stated that, even if Duran’s opposition were treated as a request for permission to file a second amended complaint, that request would be denied because amendment would be futile. The court found that the proposed new claims were also too vague and conclusory to state a claim showing entitlement to relief.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss. It dismissed the action without leave to amend and with prejudice. Judge Rita F. Lin explained that Duran had already had an opportunity to address the pleading defects but had been unable to cure them.