Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 25NNCV00134, Date: 2025-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25NNCV00134    Hearing Date: April 4, 2025    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Sherman Rourman dba Vehicle Center (“Plaintiff,” a self-represented litigant) alleges that he is a California auto dealer and that Defendant Progressive Casualty and Insurance Company (“Defendant”) issued the lien collateral insurance binder to Plaintiff as legal owner/loss payee.  Plaintiff alleges: “Mrs. Barajas was a contractual payment defaulted registered owner before repossession, that prolonged evasively, for months. During the time of default, she still had possession, and salvaged the Ford dump truck in an accident on 5-15-2021. Progressive cancelled her insurance alleging non-payment on 5-15-2021, that I allege and will prove as intentional to evade the claim, not same day coincidental. Thereafter, Progressive denied my claim, but never sent me the 10-day notice of in advance of cancellation, requiring my authorized signature.”  (Compl. at p12.) 

The complaint, filed January 8, 2025, alleges causes of action for: (1) failure of cancellation notification by authenticated mail; (2) failure to respond with legal notifications; (3) possession without consent, felony, grand theft, and embezzlement; (4) “$10,000 DAMAGE TO A $30000 TRUCK, IT’S NOT A BONE FIDE SALVAGE!”; (5) value of truck (not dump) parts salvaged, not salvage; (6) extortion, if either attempt to pay, it implicates the other; (7) “salvage lien washing to evade payment”; (8) “CIC 790.03.E omit a true entry to an authority that examines it”; (9) “EVIDENCE I AM THE REAL OWNER TO PAY AT THE ‘TIME OF EVENT’”; (10) to rescind, release, and reinstate Plaintiff as beneficiary; and (11) petition for monetary relief, interest, taxes, and lost earnings.

B.     Demurrer on Calendar

On March 5, 2025, Defendant Progressive Casualty Insurance Company filed a demurrer and motion to strike portions of the FAC.  

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

DISCUSSION

            Defendant demurs to each cause of action alleged in the complaint on the ground that they are uncertain, fail to allege sufficient facts, are barred by the statute of limitations, and are barred by the no direct action rule.

            The Court has reviewed the allegations of the complaint and finds that they are uncertain and fail to state sufficient facts.  It is unclear what Plaintiff is attempting to allege against Defendant.  In addition, many of the “claims” alleged in the complaint are not valid causes of action. 

            In the memorandum of point and authorities, Defendant also argues that it is unable to discern the allegations but argues that there may be grounds to demur based on the statute of limitations and the no-direct action rule.  (Dem. at pp.7-8.)  It argues that it is raising these grounds to preserve.  As these grounds were not directly addressed by Defendant in the demurrer, the Court overrules the demurrer on these grounds at this time.

            The demurrer to the complaint is sustained based on uncertainty and failure to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action against Defendant.  As this is Plaintiff’s first attempt at the pleading, the Court will allow Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the allegations. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant Progressive Casualty Insurance Company’s demurrer to the complaint is sustained with 20 days leave to amend.

Defendant shall provide notice of this order.

DATED: April 4, 2025                                                           ___________________________

                                                                                          John Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court