Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Andrew Tajvar

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: August 20, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

Line 5 25CV474539 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Click LINE 5 or scroll down for ruling. Andrew Tajvar Line 6 25CV479669 Daniel Scholl v. Amiel Defendant Wade Litigation, APC’s motion to compel the Wade et al. deposition of plaintiff Daniel Scholl. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450.) Notice is proper and the motion is opposed by plaintiff. (The court did not review plaintiff’s unauthorized supplemental opposition.) Plaintiff has failed to appear for a deposition on two occasions. The court finds no substantial justification for those failures to appear.

The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff must sit for a deposition no later than September 18, 2026. Plaintiff is ordered to pay defendant $1,536 in sanctions no later than September 18, 2026. That amount consists of the $60 motion filing fee plus court reporter costs actually incurred by plaintiff’s failure to appear at the two scheduled depositions (evidenced by invoices attached to defense counsel’s declaration). The court will prepare the order. Line 7 25CV479981 Zechariah Senior v. Zaher Click LINE 7 or scroll down for ruling.

Lopez et al. Line 8 23CV423619 Timothy Young v. BMW of Click LINE 8 or scroll down for ruling. North America, LLC

- oo0oo -

Calendar Line 5 Case Name: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Andrew Tajvar Case No.: 25CV474539

This is a limited civil action brought by plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo) against defendant Andrew Tajvar (Tajvar). Wells Fargo seeks to recover unpaid credit card debt from Tajvar.

The original and still operative complaint is a form complaint filed in September 2025. It alleges two causes of action: (1) breach of written contract; and (2) breach of implied-in-fact contract (based on Tajvar’s use of a credit card). Attached to the complaint as exhibit A is a copy of the Visa credit card agreement upon which the first cause of action is based. (See Complaint, ¶ BC-1.) While the credit card agreement is not signed by either party, paragraph 1 states, in part: “This contract is for your Credit Card account (Account) and is between Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and each Account holder. . . .

By using or confirming your Account, you and any joint Account holder accept this Agreement’s terms.” Paragraph 2 states, in part: “When you use your Account or let someone else use it, you promise to pay the total amount of the Purchases, Cash Advances, and Balance Transfers. You also promise to pay all interest, fees, and other amounts that you may owe us.” Tajvar filed an answer to the complaint in October 2025.

At issue is Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment, opposed by Tajvar.

STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no triable issue of material fact as to one or more elements of a particular cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (f)(1), (o)(1).) The court identifies the causes of action framed by the pleadings. The court then determines whether the plaintiff as the moving party has carried its burden to show that there is no defense to any cause of action by proving each element of the causes of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).) If the plaintiff makes that prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the causes of action, or a defense thereto. (Ibid.) “The defendant or crossdefendant 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.” (Ibid.)

A reply “shall not include any new evidentiary matter, additional material facts, or separate statement submitted with the reply and not presented in the moving papers or opposing papers.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(4); Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537-38; Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 252.)

DISCUSSION

Wells Fargo moves for summary judgment on the basis that “there is no triable issue of material fact, or issue of liability, and therefore the moving party is entitled to summary judgment.” (Notice of Motion, p. 2:2-4.) There is no request for summary adjudication in the alternative.

A breach of contract cause of action has the following elements: (1) existence of the contract; (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendant’s breach; and (4) damages to plaintiff as a result of the breach. (Aton Center, Inc. v. United Healthcare Ins. Co. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1214, 1230.)

Wells Fargo argues that Tajvar applied for and was sent a credit card along with a copy of the credit card agreement attached to the complaint. The terms of the agreement state that use of the credit card constitutes acceptance of the agreement. Wells Fargo further argues that: “In accordance with the Customer Agreement, Defendant used the account, and made payments, charges, and incurred a balance thereon. [¶] Plaintiff sent Defendant monthly statements of the Subject Account each and every billing period. . . . . [¶] [T]here is no record of any unresolved disputes on the account. . . . . [¶] Defendant’s last payment on the Subject Account was on August 13, 2024.

Thereafter, no further payments were made by the Defendant, and therefore, pursuant to the terms of the Customer Agreement, Defendant was in default. The balance due on Defendant’s Subject Account is $7,574.52.” (Memorandum, p. 4:12-25, internal citations omitted.)

The motion is supported by two declarations. The first is from Brendan Hogan, a Loan Workout Specialist employed by Wells Fargo. He states that as part of his duties, he is responsible for monitoring credit card accounts, investigating and resolving customer disputes, and reviewing Wells Fargo business records for purposes of litigation. As part of his duties, he reviewed Tajvar’s records with Wells Fargo. He states that these records show that Tajvar:

applied for, and was issued, a Wells Fargo credit card account.

Thereafter, Plaintiff sent Defendant a Wells Fargo Credit Card through the mail.

The most recent Customer Agreement associated with the Credit Card was made available to Defendant for review and objection.

Pursuant to Paragraph 1 of the Customer Agreement, Defendant accepted the terms of the Customer [A]greement by using the credit card.

Defendant’s account was opened with Plaintiff on or about May 11, 2012.

Pursuant to the terms of the Customer Agreement, in exchange for making charges on the credit card, Defendant agreed to repay the principal amount plus any applicable interest and finance charges thereon.

Defendant charged goods and services to the account, or authorized others to charge goods and services to the account, with Plaintiff and thereby incurred a balance for said charges along with interest which was stated on the monthly billing statements. ...

Every month Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s computer system generates a monthly statement that is sent to the customer. As transactions are reported such as charges, overdraft transfers, cash advances and payments, they are recorded in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s computer system which stores them, compiles the data, and keeps track of

the balance on a daily basis. This data is then used to generate the monthly statement that is sent to the customer.

(Hogan Decl., ¶¶ 9-16.)

Hogan declares that there “is no record of any unresolved disputes on this credit card account or any active lawsuits against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. for any unresolved disputes on this credit card account of which Plaintiff is aware. [¶] The Defendant made payments of the principal and interest on the subject account up and through August 13, 2024. [¶] No further payments were made on this account after August 13, 2024, and a balance of $7,574.52 remains due and owing from Defendant to Plaintiff on the subject account.” (Hogan Decl., ¶¶ 20-22.) There are two exhibits attached to the Hogan declaration. Exhibit 1 is a copy of Wells Fargo’s most recent Customer Agreement. Exhibit 2 consists of copies of all available statements of account for Tajvar’s credit card. (See Hogan Decl., ¶¶ 11 & 15.)

The second declaration is from Edgar Lopez, counsel for Wells Fargo, who authenticates two attached exhibits (again numbered 1 and 2). Exhibit 1 is a copy of requests for admission that Wells Fargo propounded on Tajvar and Exhibit 2 is a copy of Tajvar’s responses. Tajvar admitted four of the requests, numbers 1, 3, 4, and 7. He admitted in request no. 1 that he had been issued a Wells Fargo credit card. He admitted in request no. 3 that he, or those authorized by him, were the only ones to use the card. He admitted in request no. 4 that he received the monthly statements for the credit card. And he admitted in request no. 7 that the last payment he made was on August 13, 2024.

The evidence submitted by Wells Fargo is sufficient to meet its initial burden of establishing an absence of triable issues of material fact as to both the existence of a contract between itself and Tajvar (written or implied-by-conduct) and the existence and the amount of the debt owed by Tajvar to Wells Fargo.

When the burden shifts, Tajvar does not raise any triable issue of material fact. Tajvar argues there is a dispute as to the amount of the debt owed to Wells Fargo. But Tajvar’s dispute with a third party merchant over a purchase he made does not raise any triable issue as to amount of money he owes Wells Fargo. Tajvar does not contend that the transaction with the third party was an unauthorized or fraudulent use of the credit card. He does not deny making the purchase. Tajvar’s own evidence, exhibit C to Tajvar’s declaration, establishes that he was told more than a year ago in August 2025 that Visa had rejected his claim disputing the purchase and had decided in favor of the third party merchant.

As a result, the purchase amount had been rebilled to the card account and was once again owed to Wells Fargo. Exhibit C also indicates that a letter explaining this was sent to Tajvar in March 2024.

Tajvar has also failed to establish that a violation of the Truth In Lending Act (TILA) provides him with an affirmative defense to Wells Fargo’s claims. The opposition’s contention that Wells Fargo’s motion fails to address this issue does not raise a triable issue because it is not part of a plaintiff’s initial burden on summary judgment to address affirmative defenses. (Oldcastle, supra, 170 Cal.App.4th at pp. 564-565.)

As the reply points out in responding to this argument, Tajvar has not established any violation of the TILA or its implementing regulation (Regulation Z). He has not submitted evidence of a compliant billing error notice. Under 18 U.S.C. section 1666, subdivision (a), to 12

begin the process of disputing a charge a written notice of a billing error must be sent to “the address disclosed under section 127(b)(10) [15 U.S.C. § 1637(b)(10)].” Similarly, under 12 Code of Federal Regulations part 1026.13(b)(1), a written notice of a billing error must be sent by a consumer to the creditor “at the address disclosed under § 1026.7(a)(9) or (b)(9), as applicable, no later than 60 days after the creditor transmitted the first periodic statement that reflects the alleged billing error.”

The monthly statements sent to Tajvar by Wells Fargo identify the address for sending a written notice of a claimed billing error as: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., P.O. Box 522, Des Moines, IA, 50306-0522.” (See statements in exhibit 2 to the Hogan Decl.) Tajvar admitted that he received the monthly statements sent by Wells Fargo, meaning he had notice of that address. (See exhibit 2 to the Lopez decl., response to RFA no. 4)

Because Wells Fargo met its initial burden and Tajvar has not raised any triable issue of material fact in opposition, the motion for summary judgment is granted.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

The trial set for May 17, 2027, is vacated.

The court will prepare the order.

- oo0oo -

13