Patterson v. Wells Fargo & Company

── Patterson v. Wells Fargo & Company ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 18, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 18 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BERNARD J. PATTERSON; JOSHUA P. No. 24-7439 ADAMS; LINDA G. JORDAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others D.C. No. Similarly Situated, 3:23-cv-03858-TLT Plaintiffs - Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Trina L. Thompson, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted April 20, 2026 San Francisco, California Before: S.R. THOMAS, CHRISTEN, and FORREST, Circuit Judges; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Forrest. Plaintiffs Bernard Patterson, Joshua Adams, and Linda Jordan, on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, appeal the district court’s order granting * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review the district court’s decision de novo. Eichenberger v. ESPN, Inc., 876 F.3d 979, 982 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. 1. Plaintiffs adequately alleged that Wells Fargo violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by obtaining Plaintiffs’ credit reports without a permissible purpose. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(f).2 To allege a violation of § 1681b(f), a plaintiff must allege facts giving rise to a plausible inference that the defendant obtained the plaintiff’s credit report without a permissible purpose. Nayab v. Cap. One Bank (USA), N.A., 942 F.3d 480, 495–96 (9th Cir. 2019). The defendant bears “the burden of pleading it had an authorized purpose.” Id. at 495. Here, Plaintiffs alleged that they had no existing business relationship with Wells Fargo, that they did not apply for Wells Fargo bank accounts, and that Wells Fargo opened bank accounts in their names. Plaintiffs further alleged that before opening these accounts, Wells Fargo received Plaintiffs’ true and correct personal 1 Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. 2 Plaintiffs raise claims pursuant to both FCRA and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA). The parties agree that Plaintiffs’ arguments concerning FCRA apply with equal force to the CCRAA, a statute that is “substantially based on [FCRA].” Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 889 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation modified). Compare 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(f), with Cal. Civ. Code § 1785.19(a)(1)–(2). 2 24-7439 identification information (PII) from an identity verification service, and that for some of Plaintiffs, this PII contradicted the PII Wells Fargo associated with the unauthorized accounts.3 After opening the bank accounts in Plaintiffs’ names, Wells Fargo obtained each of Plaintiffs’ credit reports. Plaintiffs’ allegations— accepted as true and construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, Eichenberger, 876 F.3d at 981—give rise “to a reasonable inference that [Wells Fargo] obtained [their] credit report[s] for a purpose not authorized by statute.” Nayab, 942 F.3d at 499. The allegations “rule out many of the potential