Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV02071, Date: 2024-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV02071, Date: 2024-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV02071 Hearing Date: April 2, 2024 Dept: C

Capital One, N.A. vs Suzana Brandao

Case No.: 23NWCV02071

Hearing Date: April 2, 2024 @ 10:30 AM

Tentative Ruling

Defendant Suzana Brandao Demurrer is OVERRULED.

Defendant to give notice.

Background

This is a breach of contract case based on an alleged business debt against Defendant Suzana Brandao (“Defendant”) filed by Plaintiff Capital One (“Plaintiff”) on July 5, 2023.

Legal Standard

The party against whom a complaint has been filed may object to the pleading, by demurrer, on several grounds, including the ground that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (CCP § 430.10(e).) A party may demur to an entire complaint, or to any causes of action stated therein. (CCP § 430.50(a).)

Discussion

Defendant acting as pro per, Demurrers to the First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract and Second Cause of Action for Common Counts. Defendant states that at no time did she own or operate a business in her name, or a signer on any accounts associated with the business Plaintiff attempts to collect a debt from. (Brandao Decl., ¶¶ 6-7.) Defendant goes on to argue that she never received any benefits, financial or material from the charges associated with the business. (Brandao Decl., ¶ 8.)

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that this issues is not one that can be properly addressed on a demurrer as Plaintiff has sufficiently pled facts to put Plaintiff on notice of the causes of action.

In reply, Defendant contends that through meet and confer efforts she has made Plaintiff aware that there was an error as she has never owed money on a Capital One Spark Business Card. Defendant further explains that she received billing statements showing that the transactions were not made by her.

At this stage, the Court may only grant a demurrer for uncertainty if the complaint is so bad that defendant cannot reasonably respond. (Rhoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612,616.) Here, the face of the Complaint lists the alleged debt incurred and the account number in connection with the alleged debt.

Accordingly, the Court at this point OVERRULES the Demurrer.