Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Brandon Vargas
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Brandon Vargas
Case Number
23CV02717
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Wed, 02/28/2024 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment
Tentative Ruling
For Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.: Jon O. Blanda, Ashley Mulhorn
For Defendant Brandon Vargas: Self-Represented
RULING
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted. The Court has reviewed the proposed judgment submitted by Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo shall modify the proposed judgment to remove the costs. Costs are appropriately claimed by way of a memorandum of costs pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1700. The trial date of 4/17/24 is vacated.
Background
This action commenced on June 26, 2023, by the filing of the complaint by Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) against Defendant Brandon Vargas setting forth causes of action for breach of written contract, breach of implied in fact contract, common counts of money lent, and money paid, open book account, and account stated. The allegations pertain to a credit card issued to Vargas by Plaintiff on February 6, 2015, which he used to purchase goods, services, and for cash advances. (Complaint, ¶ BC-1.) On May 2, 2022, Vargas failed to remit any further payments on the account. (Id. at ¶ BC-2.) Wells Fargo alleges damages of $20,573.24 and cost of suit.
Vargas answered the complaint on August 8, 2023, stating a general denial and several convoluted affirmative defenses.
Wells Fargo now moves for summary judgment on the grounds that there are “no triable issues of material fact, or issues of liability.” (Motion, p. 2. ll. 1-2.) Wells Fargo supports its motion with points and authorities, a separate statement of undisputed material facts, and a declaration of Plaintiff’s qualified witness with copies of a customer agreement and copies of Vargas’ statement of account regarding the subject credit card.
No opposition or other responsive document has been filed by Vargas.
Although not considered in ruling on the present motion, because it occurred after the filing of the motion, on November 8, 2023, Wells Fargo was granted an order that matters set forth in requests for admission are deemed admitted.
Analysis
Standard on Summary Judgment
“A party may move for summary judgment in an action or proceeding if it is contended that . . . there is no defense to the action or proceeding.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a)(1).)
“[F]rom commencement to conclusion, the party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) There is no obligation on the opposing party to establish anything by affidavit unless and until the moving party has by affidavit stated facts establishing every element necessary to sustain an adjudication in his favor. (Consumer Cause, Inc. v. Smilecare (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 454, 468.)
Plaintiff’s Burden
“[S]ummary judgment law in this state no longer requires a Plaintiff moving for summary judgment to disprove any defense asserted by the Defendant as well as prove each element of his own cause of action. In this particular, it now accords with federal law. All that the Plaintiff need do is to ‘prove[ ] each element of the cause of action.’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (o)(1).)” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 853.)
“A Plaintiff or cross-complainant has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action. Once the Plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the Defendant or cross-Defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto. The Defendant or cross-Defendant shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).)
As Wells Fargo is the moving party, it must prove each element of its causes of action. Once it has done so, the burden shifts to Vargas to show that there is a triable issue of one or more material facts.
Breach of Contract
“To prevail on a cause of action for breach of contract, the Plaintiff must prove (1) the contract, (2) the Plaintiff’s performance of the contract or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the Defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damage to the Plaintiff.” (Richman v. Hartley (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1182, 1186.)
“A contract is either express or implied. (Civ. Code, § 1619.) The terms of an express contract are stated in words. (Civ. Code, § 1620.) The existence and terms of an implied contract are manifested by conduct. (Civ. Code, § 1621.) The distinction reflects no difference in legal effect but merely in the mode of manifesting assent. [Citation.] Accordingly, a contract implied in fact “ ‘consists of obligations arising from a mutual agreement and intent to promise where the agreement and promise have not been expressed in words.’ ” [Citation.]” (Retired Employees Assn. of Orange County, Inc. v. County of Orange (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1171, 1178.)
Wells Fargo has provided evidence that a contract exists. The undisputed facts, as set forth in Wells Fargo’s separate statement, which Vargas does not dispute, are: (1) Defendant applied for and was issued a Wells Fargo credit card (Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ¶ 1 (“SSUMF”); (2) Plaintiff sent Defendant the credit card along with the written Customer Agreement associated with the credit card (Id. at ¶ 2); (3) Defendant accepted the terms of the written agreement when they used the Wells Fargo Credit Card (Id. at ¶ 3); (4) Pursuant to the terms of the Customer Agreement associated with the card, Plaintiff would extend credit to Defendant whereby Defendant could charge goods, services, or obtain cash advances on the credit line (Id. at ¶ 4); (5) In exchange, Defendant was to repay the principal amount lent plus applicable interest and finance charges (Id. at ¶ 5); In accordance with the Customer Agreement, Defendant used the account, and made payments, charges, and incurred a balance thereon (Id. at ¶ 6); (7) Plaintiff sent Defendant monthly statements of the Subject Account each and every billing period (Id. at ¶ 7); (8) The statements of the account reflected all charges, payments, minimum payment due that billing period, and any fees and interest incurred for each billing period (Id. at ¶ 8); (9) There is no record of any unresolved disputes on the account (Id. at ¶ 9); (10) There is no record of any active lawsuits against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. for unresolved disputes on this credit card account (Id. at ¶ 10); (11) Defendant’s last payment on the Subject Account was on May 2, 2022 (Id. at ¶ 11); (12) Thereafter, no further payments were made by the Defendant, and therefore, pursuant to the terms of the Customer Agreement, Defendant was in default (Id. at ¶ 12); (13) The balance due on Defendant’s Subject Account is $20,573.24 (Id. at ¶ 13); and (14) As a result of Defendant’s unpaid balance, Plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of $20,573.24. (Id. at ¶ 14.)
In this case, Wells Fargo has provided admissible evidence of a written contract as well as a course of conduct that support the existence of a contract. Wells Fargo’s undisputed facts, and evidence, establish all elements of its express and implied breach of contract causes of action.
Money Lent
“The common law, from which we derive our forms of pleading known as the ‘common counts,’ knew a count for ‘money lent’ which was the appropriate form in which to state a cause of action for money loaned.” (Jones v. Re–Mine Oil Co. (1941) 47 Cal.App.2d 832, 843.) To state a common count for money lent, the Plaintiff need only allege that the Defendant is indebted in a certain sum for money loaned by the Plaintiff and that the Defendant has not repaid the money. (Pleasant v. Samuels (1896) 114 Cal. 34, 36–38.)
Wells Fargo has provided admissible evidence that: (1) Defendant was issued a Wells Fargo credit card account (SSUMF, ¶ 15); (2) Money was lent to Defendant which permitted Defendant to make charges on the credit card account (Id. at ¶ 16); (3) Defendant was to repay the principal along with interest and finance charges (Id. at ¶ 17); (4) Money was lent to Defendant on the card and the card was used to make charges leading Defendant to incur a balance (Id. at ¶ 18); and (5) Defendant owes Wells Fargo money and the balance due on the credit card account is $20,573.24. (Id. at ¶ 21.)
Money Paid
“Where one pays out money for the benefit of another, at the latter’s request, the count for money paid, laid out, and expended will lie, and the law raises an implied promise and a legal liability on the party of the Defendant to pay immediately on demand.” (Rains v. Arnett (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 337, 344.)
Here, as established above, Wells Fargo has produced admissible evidence that it issued a credit card to Vargas, that Vargas used the credit card and incurred a balance owing, Vargas had an obligation to repay the principal and interest due on the credit card, and that Vargas still owes Wells Fargo money as a result of using the credit card.
Wells Fargo has established all of the elements of the common count of money paid and has therefore met its initial burden.
Open Book Account
“The elements of an open book account cause of action are: “ ‘1. That [Plaintiff] and [Defendant] had financial transactions . . . ; [¶] 2. That [Plaintiff] . . . kept [an] account of the debits and credits involved in the transactions; [¶] 3. That [Defendant] owes [Plaintiff] money on the account; and [¶] 4. The amount of money that [Defendant] owes [Plaintiff].’ ” (CACI No. 372.)” (State Compensation Insurance Fund v. ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 422, 449.)
“A ‘book account’ is defined as a ‘ “ ‘detailed statement, kept in a book, in the nature of debit and credit, arising out of contract or some fiduciary relation.’ ” It is, of course, necessary for the book to show against whom the charges are made. . . . It must also be made to appear in whose favor the charges run.’ ” [Citations.] A book account may furnish the basis for an action on a common count ‘ “ ‘. . . when it contains a statement of the debits and credits of the transactions involved completely enough to supply evidence from which it can be reasonably determined what amount is due to the claimant.’ ” ’ [Citations.] A book account is described as ‘open’ when the debtor has made some payment on the account, leaving a balance due.” (Interstate Group Administrators, Inc. v. Cravens, Dargan & Co. 174 Cal.App.3d 700, 708.)
Again, as established above, Wells Fargo has produced admissible evidence, including credit card statements, that it issued a credit card to Vargas, that Vargas used the credit card and incurred a balance owing, Vargas had an obligation to repay the principal and interest due on the credit card, and that Vargas still owes Wells Fargo money as a result of using the credit card. Wells Fargo has further established that it has kept an account of the debits and credits involved in the credit card transactions and it states the total amount owed in principal and interest. As such, Wells Fargo has met its burden of proving its cause of action for open book account.
Account Stated
“ ‘The essential elements of an account stated are: (1) previous transactions between the parties establishing the relationship of debtor and creditor; (2) an agreement between the parties, express or implied, on the amount due from the debtor to the creditor; (3) a promise by the debtor, express or implied, to pay the amount due. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Leighton v. Forster (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 467, 491.)
By way of the SSUMFs discussed above, as well as the evidence in support, Wells Fargo has established all of the elements of its account stated cause of action, including transactions between Vargas and Wells Fargo establishing a debtor and creditor relationship, an agreement between the parties on the amount due (Vargas never disputed the amounts stated as due in the monthly statements), and Vargas’ promise to pay the amounts due.
Because Wells Fargo has met its burden of proving all of the elements of its causes of action against Vargas, and the motion is unopposed, summary judgment will be granted in favor of Wells Fargo.