Department 58

Hearing Date: October 20, 2022

Case Names: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association v. Varun Textiles, Inc., et al.

Case Nos.: 22STCV08508

Matter: Motion for Summary Judgment

Moving Party: Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, National Association

Responding Party: Unopposed

Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted in the total amount of $129,727.85.

Background

This is a collection action for extensions of credit that Wells Fargo Bank (Plaintiff) made to Varun Textiles, Inc. and Sanjay M. Khiani (Defendants). The Complaint alleges causes of action for breach of contract, account stated, money lent, and breach of guaranty.

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on all claims. No opposition was filed.

Legal Standard

“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.) A triable issue of material fact exists if the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof. (Ibid.)

When a plaintiff seeks summary judgment or adjudication, he or she must show “that there is no defense to a cause of action if [he or she] has proved each element of the cause of action entitling [him] to judgment on the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1). Once the plaintiff meets this burden, “the burden shifts to the defendant…to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Ibid.)

Discussion

Breach of Contract

“A cause of action for breach of contract requires proof of 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.” (CDF Firefighters v. Maldonado¿(2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1226, 1239.)

Here, Plaintiff has presented evidence of (1) the parties’ agreement through a “BusinessLine Acceptance Certificate Agreement and Personal Guarantee”; (2) its own performance in extending the credit and lending the money to Defendants; (3) Defendants’ failure to repay the loan; and (4) its damages because of Defendants’ failure to repay the loan. (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“UMF”) 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, and supporting evidence.) Plaintiff has provided the declaration of Erica Mendoza, Senior Loan Workout Specialist, to authenticate the loan agreement between the parties. (See generally, Mendoza Decl.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) Here, Plaintiff has met its burden to show that there are no triable issues of material fact as to the elements of a breach of contract claim. Therefore, the burden shifts to Defendants to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to this cause of action. As the motion is unopposed, Defendants have not met their burden as to the first cause of action.

Account Stated

“An account stated is an agreement, based on the prior transactions between the parties, that the items of the account are true and that the balance struck is due and owing from one party to another.” (Gleason v. Klamer (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 782, 786.) This is viewed as a “new contract.” (Ibid.) “‘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.’” (Leighton v. Forster (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 467, 491.)

Plaintiff has presented evidence that (1) it issued a Business Line of Credit to Defendants, with an account number ending in 4026 and in which Plaintiff is the creditor and Defendants are the debtors; (2) Defendants have admitted to the amount due and using the Line of Credit, and (3) Defendants impliedly agreed to pay the amount due by admitting the payment terms and failing to dispute the accuracy of the balance due. (UMF 2, 3, 5, 6 and supporting evidence.)

Defendants fail to rebut this evidence by failing to file any opposition.

Money Lent

To state a common count for money lent, the plaintiff must 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. (Pike v. Zadig (1915) 171 Cal. 273, 276; Pleasant v. Samuels (1896) 114 Cal. 34, 36–38; Pike v. Zadig (1915) 171 Cal. 273, 276.)

Plaintiff’s evidence indicates that defendant owes $123,333.28 and that the amounts have not been paid. (UMF 8, 9, 11.) Defendant’s lack of opposition fails to raise any triable issues of fact.

Breach of Guaranty

The elements of a breach of guaranty cause of action are: “(1) there is a valid guaranty, (2) the borrower has defaulted, and (3) the guarantor failed to perform under the guaranty.” (Gray1 CPB, LLC v. Kolokotronis (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 480, 486; Civ. Code, § 2807.)

The undisputed facts establish that Defendant Sanjay Varun personally agreed in writing to pay Plaintiff under the Line of Credit. (UMF 4.) Defendants have defaulted and the guarantor has failed to perform. (Id. at 5, 10, 11 and supporting evidence.) Defendants have failed to provide any opposing evidence.

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees of $5,736.67 is granted because it complies with Los Angeles County Local Rule 3.214(a). (Ramirez-Browning Decl., ¶ 3.) Costs are also granted in the amount of $657.90. (Ibid.)

Conclusion

The motion for summary judgment is granted in the amount of $123,333.28 in damages, $5,736.67 in attorney’s fees, and $657.90 in costs, for a total of $129,727.85.