Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 24CHCV00004, Date: 2024-04-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV00004    Hearing Date: April 23, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 4-23-24

Case #24CHCV00004, Sarasota CCM, Inc. vs. Got A Hand LLC, et al.

Trial Date: N/A

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Oswald Alfredo Flores and Eileen Yanil Hernandez

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Sarasota CCM, Inc.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Demurrer to the Complaint

·         Defendants have demurred on the basis that Plaintiff lacks standing, Plaintiff failed to state a cause of action, and because Defendant has requested a repayment plan or refinancing.

RULING: Demurrer is overruled.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On January 2, 2024, Plaintiff Sarasota CCM, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants Oswald Alfredo Flores and Eileen Yanil Hernandez (Defendants), as well as Got A Hand LLC. Plaintiff has alleged five causes of action against Defendants for (1) breach of contract; (2) money lent; (3) account stated; (4) breach of guaranty; and (5) money due. These causes of action are all related to the failure of Defendants to make payments on an Equipment Finance Agreement.

Defendants filed their demurer, in pro per, to Plaintiff’s complaint on March 11, 2024. Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ demurrer.

ANALYSIS

A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. (CCP § 430.30(a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising questions of law.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.) “In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (CCP § 452.) The court “ ‘ “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law…” ’ ” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.) In applying these standards, the court liberally construes the complaint to determine whether a cause of action has been stated. (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.)

Defendants have demurred on the basis that Plaintiff lacks standing and that Plaintiff failed to state a cause of action. Defendants also appear to have demurred on the basis that Defendant has requested a repayment plan or refinancing.

Defendants’ demurrer contains no reference to specific facts alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint. It appears that Defendants may have used a form for their demurrer. Their demurrer does not challenge the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s pleading in any specific way. Because Defendants have not addressed the facts from Plaintiff’s complaint, there is no way for the Court to evaluate their demurrer.

Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint is overruled.

Moving party to give notice to all parties.