Batinovich

Batinovich v. Wells Fargo Bank CA6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 10, 2025H051825California4,258 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wilson, J.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Complaint and Allegations On February 28, 2019, Batinovich filed a complaint, which listed Batinovich, his wife Ann Batinovich, and Batinovich’s company, I2A Technologies, Inc. (I2A) as plaintiffs, against 18 named defendants, including Wells Fargo, and 75 unnamed defendants, for a single cause of action of fraud. Batinovich then filed a first amended complaint (FAC) on November 7, 2019, that included eight causes of action, including intentional and negligent breach of duty of great care or diligence, fraudulent and negligent conversion of bailment property, fraudulent and negligent conversion of Batinovich’s checking account, and fraudulent and negligent conversion of Batinovich’s loan account. In his FAC, Batinovich alleged that Wells Fargo had repossessed semi-conductor chips and other company inventory from I2A after I2A had defaulted on a $500,000 line of credit, and sold the inventory to a third party for a “tiny fraction” of its actual value. Batinovich also claimed that Wells Fargo had improperly debited his personal checking account for funds that he had never withdrawn or signed/authorized checks for, and subsequently froze…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.