Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCV18103, Date: 2023-02-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18103    Hearing Date: February 3, 2023    Dept: 52

Defendant Mauricio Aguilar’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike Complaint

Defendant Mauricio Aguilar demurs to plaintiff Convertibles Only, Inc. dba Heritage Classics’ complaint.  A demurrer “test[s] the legal sufficiency of a complaint.”  (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.)  In ruling on a demurrer, courts “assume that the complaint’s properly pleaded material allegations are true and give the complaint a reasonable interpretation by reading it as a whole and all its parts in their context” but do not “assume the truth of contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law.” (Moore v. Regents of University of California (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120, 125.)    

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges three causes of action: (1) conversion, (2) violation of Penal Code § 496, and (3) claim and delivery.  All three causes of action arise from the allegation that plaintiff owns a specialized race car, which defendant possesses.

Defendant Aguilar demurs primarily on the basis that plaintiff lacks standing to assert any claims regarding the vehicle.  He argues plaintiff does not “have any rights to file a complaint on behalf of Bruno Lafitte.”  Plaintiff has the right to file this complaint on its own behalf.  The complaint alleges plaintiff sold the car to Lafitte, but retained a security interest in it.  (Comp., ¶ 10, Ex. 1.)  Plaintiff further alleges that “title to the Vehicle was transferred back to Plaintiff by Bruno Lafitte” later.  (Id., ¶ 13.)  The complaint includes a certificate of title showing a transfer date of November 5, 2020, to registered owner “Heritage Classics.”  (Id., Ex. 2.)

Plaintiff is not suing on behalf of Bruno Lafitte.  The complaint alleges Lafitte no longer owns the vehicle.  Plaintiff now owns it.  Accepting the complaint’s allegations as true, plaintiff shows it is entitled to immediate possession of the vehicle as required for its three causes of action.

Defendant also argues plaintiff wants to retrieve the vehicle “without paying the fee due on the vehicle and the storage fee accrued by the buyer.”  This argument improperly relies on factual assertions outside the complaint.  “A demurrer can be used only to challenge defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack … .  No other extrinsic evidence can be considered.”  (Kerivan v. Title Ins. & Trust Co. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 225, 229.)  “ ‘A demurrer can be utilized where the complaint itself is incomplete or discloses some defense that would bar recovery.’ ”  (Estate of Moss (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 521, 535.)

Moreover, even if these assertions were proper on demurrer, they would not be relevant.  They are not part of the elements of plaintiff’s causes of action.  Rather than a defect in plaintiff’s complaint, this argument concerns a dispute between defendant Aguilar and Lafitte.  That someone else owes Aguilar money does not negate plaintiff’s right to immediate possession of the vehicle as alleged in the complaint.

Motion to Strike       

Defendant’s motion is labeled a demurrer and motion to strike.  A typical motion to strike seeks to strike specified portions of a complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 435(b)(1), 436(a).)  Defendant does not seek to strike any portion of the complaint.  Defendant’s motion to strike merely duplicates the demurrer and fails for the same reasons. 

Disposition 

            Defendant Mauricio Aguilar’s demurrer is overruled.  Defendant Mauricio Aguilar’s motion to strike is denied.  Defendant Mauricio Aguilar is ordered to answer within 20 days.