Tonelli v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Background

Stephen Tonelli sued Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. He alleged that Wells Fargo failed to provide information about certain checking and savings accounts and failed to return funds held in those accounts. The accounts had been identified as property of the Tonelli Trust, and Tonelli became the trust’s successor trustee after his brother, Kevin Tonelli, died. Tonelli alleged that the accounts had held more than $497,000 as of April 30, 2018. Wells Fargo later told him that the balance was sixty cents.

Tonelli asserted claims for “money” under California Civil Code section 3302, an accounting, and breach of contract. During the case, Tonelli’s counsel stated that Wells Fargo had provided bank statements showing that the funds had been transferred out. Tonelli also argued at the hearing that Wells Fargo had breached a contractual duty to prevent fraudulent withdrawals, although that theory was not stated in the complaint.

Judicial Notice

The court granted Wells Fargo’s request to take judicial notice of a publicly available probate-court petition. Judicial notice allows a court to consider certain facts or public records whose accuracy is not reasonably disputed. The court also granted judicial notice of Tonelli’s First Amended Complaint because it was part of the court’s own docket.

Motion to Dismiss Standard

Wells Fargo moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion but explained that a claim must include enough factual matter to make liability plausible, not merely possible.

Money Claim

The court held that California Civil Code section 3302 is a measure of damages for certain obligations to pay money, not an independent cause of action. Because Tonelli cited no authority showing that section 3302 creates a claim, the court dismissed the section 3302 claim with prejudice.

Accounting Claim

An accounting claim requires a relationship that creates a duty to account and a balance that can be determined only through an accounting. The court explained that a fiduciary relationship is not always required, but Tonelli still had to explain why the amount due could not be determined from the bank statements.

The court found that Tonelli repeated the same deficiency identified in an earlier round of the case: he asserted that the amount was unknown but did not explain why reviewing the bank statements was insufficient. The court further stated that an accounting was not the proper method for obtaining information about who received the transfers or who authorized them. It dismissed the accounting claim with prejudice.

Breach-of-Contract Claim

To plead breach of contract, Tonelli had to identify the contract’s material terms and the obligation Wells Fargo allegedly breached. His complaint identified a written agreement for banking services and alleged that Wells Fargo failed to follow his instructions to return funds held for the trust.

The court did not decide whether Tonelli had authority to give those instructions. It noted uncertainty about whether his power of attorney remained effective after his brother’s death, while also recognizing that Tonelli might have authority as trustee. Instead, the court held that the claim failed for another reason.

At the hearing, Tonelli characterized the claim as based on Wells Fargo’s failure to prevent fraudulent withdrawals. The court found that the complaint did not allege fraud, a contractual duty to police the accounts, or a breach of such a duty. The court also stated that Wells Fargo could not have breached an obligation to return approximately $500,000 that it held on deposit when the instructions were given because the complaint and Tonelli’s opposition indicated that the funds had already been transferred out. The court dismissed the breach-of-contract claim without prejudice and granted leave to amend.

Disposition

The court granted Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss. The money and accounting claims were dismissed with prejudice. The breach-of-contract claim was dismissed without prejudice, and Tonelli was permitted to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the order. Wells Fargo’s responsive pleading was due September 14, 2020.