Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 25STCV01466, Date: 2025-04-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCV01466    Hearing Date: April 8, 2025    Dept: 74

Noriega v. First Premier Bank et al.

Defendant Westlake Services, LLC Demurrer, or in the Alternative, Compel Arbitration

BACKGROUND 

This motion arises from a Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act action.

Plaintiff Daniel Noriega (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against defendants First Premier Bank; LVNV Funding LLC; Capital One, N.A.; and Westlake Services, LLC (Westlake).

            On February 27, 2025, Westlake filed a Demurrer, or in the alternative, Motion to Compel Arbitration.

DISCUSSION

Demurrer

Westlake demurs to the complaint on the grounds that it was improperly joined in the action.  Improper joinder of parties is ground for a special demurrer.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(d).)  A demurrer for misjoinder of parties shall be overruled unless the defendant shows prejudice or impaired interests.  (Anaya v. Sup. Ct. (Dow Chemical Co.) (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 288, 231.) 

            In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that defendants FPB, LVNV, Capital One and Westlake furnished inaccurate and incomplete information to consumer reporting agencies.  (Complaint ¶¶ 11-16.)  The defendants provided the improper information between December 2019 and June 2024.  (Complaint ¶¶ 11-16.)  The improper information caused Plaintiff’s credit score and credit rating to fall.  (Complaint ¶ 20.)  Plaintiff suffered emotional distress, pain and suffering, humiliation and injury to reputation due to the reduction.  (Complaint ¶ 22.) Each defendant contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries at different times and presumably to different degrees. 

            Defendants may be joined in a single action where (1) the right to relief arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and questions of law or fact will arise common to all defendants or (2) where plaintiff asserts a claim adverse to the defendants in the “property or controversy which is the subject of the action.”  (Code Civ. Proc. § 379(a).)  Additionally, if the Plaintiff is in doubt as to whom it is entitled for redress, the plaintiff may join two or more defendants with the intent to question which defendant is liable.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 379(c).)  “[A] plaintiff may join two independent tortfeasors in a single action if he pleads facts showing that he entertains a reasonable doubt as to which defendant is liable for his injuries, or the extent to which each may be liable.”  (Landau v. Salam (1971) 4 Cal.3d 901, 903.)  Plaintiff does not intermingle the relief to which he states he is entitled to under the Complaint. Instead, Plaintiff seeks individualized recovery against each defendant.  On the face of the complaint, Plaintiff does not appear to be in reasonable doubt as to the extent each defendant is liable.  Therefore, the Court sustains Westlake’s Demurrer.

            Plaintiff requests leave to amend the Complaint to establish reasonable doubt.  Plaintiff states facts in the Opposition which may reasonably allow Plaintiff to join all parties to the complaint.  Thus, leave to amend is granted.

Arbitration

            A demurrer is not the proper vehicle to compel arbitration.  Thus, the Court declines to consider Westlake’s alternative Motion to Compel Arbitration at this time.  (Kustom Kraft Homes v. Leivenstein (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 805, 811 (“it is clear that a request to arbitrate may not be raised by a demurrer.”)) 

CONCLUSION

            The Court sustains Defendant’s Demurrer with leave to amend.

            Defendants to give notice.