Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV02091, Date: 2024-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV02091    Hearing Date: April 18, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     April 18, 2024                                     TRIAL DATE: November 12, 2024

CASE:                         CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. v. EDGAR J GUTIERREZ AKA EDGAR GUTIERREZ; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV02091

DEMURRER

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Edgar J Gutierrez

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc.

SERVICE:                              Filed October 20, 2023

OPPOSITION:                       Filed April 2, 2024

REPLY:                                   Filed April 11, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

             Defendant demurrers to Plaintiff’s complaint.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that Defendant Edgar J. Guttierrez (“Defendant”) owes an outstanding sum of $16,505.58 for credit card charges and $9,903.83 for a line of credit. Plaintiff filed this complaint on September 11, 2023, alleging one cause of action for breach of contract.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint is OVERRULED.

Plaintiff’s request for sanction is denied.

LEGAL STANDARD

A general demurrer may be taken to a complaint where “[t]he pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).) A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action.  (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice.  (Code Civ. Proc. section 430.30(a).)  A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.  (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal. App. 3d 902, 905.)  The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.  (Hahn v. Mirda, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

Additionally, a special demurrer to a complaint may be brought on the ground the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous, or unintelligible. Code Civ. Proc section 430.10(f); Beresford Neighborhood Assn. v. City of San Mateo (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1180, 1191.) A demurrer based on uncertainty is disfavored and will be strictly construed even when the pleading is uncertain in some respects. (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) A demurrers based on uncertainty are “granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.)

DISCUSSION

            Defendant demurrers to Plaintiff on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to plead standing to this bring this claim. Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege assignment of the contract to have standing. Defendant argues that Plaintiff was required to provide the written instrument establishing assignment.  

“[A] plaintiff may plead the legal effect of the contract rather than its precise language.” (Miles v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 394, 402.) Plaintiff alleges that prior to the commencement of this action, it was assigned the claims for collection purposes only. (Complaint ¶ 4.) Plaintiff provides its assignor was City National Bank. (Id. ¶ 1.) The court notes that Plaintiff does not allege the specific date of assignment. At the pleading stage, this is sufficient for Plaintiff to allege it has standing to bring this claim for breach of contract. Similarly, Plaintiff’s complaint is not so incomprehensible as to be uncertain.

Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint is overruled.

CONCLUSION

Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint is OVERRULED.

Defendant is ordered to file an ANSWER within 10 days’ notice of this order.

Plaintiff’s request for sanction is denied.

Dated:   April 18, 2024                                               ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org