Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Patricia Santos

TENTATIVE RULING FOR AUGUST 17, 2026 Department R12 - Judge Kory Mathewson Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Patricia Santos – CIVRS2508775 Motion: Motion for Summary Judgment Movant: Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Respondent: Unopposed Ruling: Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Wells Fargo presents sufficient evidence in support of its breach of contract causes of action. Evidentiary Basis: (UFs 1-30 and evidence cited in support, including Smith Decl. ¶¶ 9, 10-12, 14, 15-17, 20-23, and Exhs. 1-2; Lopez Decl. Exhs. 1-2, RFAs 1-8.) Wells Fargo to provide Order and give notice. ______________________________________________________________________________

Wells Fargo’s argument is directed to both its breach of written contract and breach of implied contract causes of action that are alleged as the first and second causes of action.

Wells Fargo submits the following facts. Defendant applied for and was issued a Wells Fargo credit card ending in 5170. Wells Fargo sent Defendant the credit card along with the written Customer Agreement associated with the credit card. Defendant accepted the terms of the written agreement when Defendant used the Wells Fargo credit card. (UFs 1-3, 16-18.)

The Customer Agreement provided that Wells Fargo would extend credit to Defendant whereby Defendant could charge goods, services, or obtain cash advances on the credit line. In exchange, Defendant was to repay the principal amount lent plus applicable interest and finance charges. (UFs 4-5, 19-20.)

In accordance with the Customer Agreement, Defendant used the account, and made payments, charges, and incurred a balance thereon. Wells Fargo sent Defendant monthly statements of the account each and every billing period. 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. There also is no record of any unresolved disputes on the account or any active lawsuits against Wells Fargo for unresolved disputes on the account. (UFs 6-10, 21-25.)

Defendant’s last payment was on September 17, 2024. Thereafter, no further payments were made by Defendant. Therefore, under the terms of the Customer Agreement, Defendant was in default. The balance due on Defendant’s account is $5,637.09. As a result of Defendant’s unpaid balance, Wells Fargo has been damaged in the sum of $5,637.09. (UFs 11-14. 26-29.)

Wells Fargo also asserts that Defendant admitted all of the above facts in response to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions. (UFs 15, 30.)

Wells Fargo submits evidence in support of UFs 1-15 and 16-29 on the Declaration of Tanner C. Smith, employed in Wells Fargo’s legal remedies department as a Loan Workout Specialist. As part of Smith’s duties, Smith monitors the legal process for credit card accounts, investigation, and resolution of customer disputes, research, and review of Wells Fargo’s business

records for purposes of litigation. Smith also researches specific account issues, including accounts being opened, account disputes, charges, payments, and account delinquencies. Smith has personal knowledge of the way Wells Fargo conducts business and of its recordkeeping system. (Smith Decl. ¶¶ 1-4.) Smith establishes the foundation for admission of business records and sufficient foundation to testify to Defendant’s account status. (Smith Decl. ¶¶ 5-23.) Smith’s testimony supports the proposed facts made in support of Wells Fargo’s breach of contract causes of action and Exhibits 1 through 2 referenced in Smith’s declaration. (Smith Decl. ¶¶ 9, 10-12, 14, 15-17, 20-23, and Exhs. 1-2.)

Wells Fargo also filed the declaration of its counsel, Edgar Lopez, who submits Defendant’s responses to Wells Fargo’s RFAs, in which Defendant admits all RFAs, except No. 9, in which Defendant was asked to admit she does not have any defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Lopez Decl. Exhs. 1-2.) RFA No. 9 is not material to the issue before the Court.

It is noted that the invoices attached to Smith Declaration as Exhibit 2 demonstrate the ending numbers of the account when the card was first issued was 9656, not 5170, as asserted in UFs 1 and 16. (See Smith Decl. Exh. 2, p. 1.) Nonetheless, in Defendant’s responses to Wells Fargo’s RFAs, Defendant admits Wells Fargo issued Defendant a Wells Fargo credit card ending in 5170. (Lopez Decl. Exhs 1-2, RFA 1.) From Smith Exhibit 2, with the statements starting with the period from 02/21/2023 to 03/23/2023 and forward, they show an account ending in 5170.

In UFs 1-30, Wells Fargo meets its initial burden by providing competent evidence that there was an agreement with Defendant, Wells Fargo performed by lending money on the card, and Defendant breached that agreement by not paying, which damaged Wells Fargo in the amount of $5,637.09. Defendant does not oppose the motion.

Therefore, motion for summary judgment is granted.

Dated: August 17, 2026

____________________________ Judge Kory Mathewson

2