Manuel Maldonado v. Chase Bank

DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff Manuel Maldonado brings this action for Defamation and identity theft against Defendant Chase Bank. 

Defendant now demurrers to the Complaint. No opposition was filed. [FN 1] 

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED in its entirety. Generally speaking, leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) Plaintiff must demonstrate this possibility at the hearing. If he does not, no leave to amend will be given.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.  

DISCUSSION:

Demurrer to Complaint

I. Meet and Confer

The Declaration of attorney Rowena Santos reflects that the meet and confer requirement was satisfied.

II. Legal Standard

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action.  (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal. App. 4th 740, 747.)  When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context.  (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228.)  In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice.  (CCP § 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.)  Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.  (Id.)  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, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)  

III. Analysis

Defendant demurrers to the Complaint on the grounds that it fails to state facts sufficient and is uncertain. 

Plaintiff, in pro per, brings this action Defendant Chase for defamation and identity theft. (See Compl., p. 1.) The elements of a defamation claim are (1) a publication that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage. (J-M Mfg. Co. v. Phillips & Cohen LLP (2016) 247 Cal. App. 4th 87, 97.)  Identity theft is the “unauthorized use of another person’s personal identifying information to obtain credit, goods, services, money, or property.” (Civ. Code § 1798.92.) A person who is the victim of identity theft may bring an action for damages against a person who procured property through identify theft. (Id. § 1798.93(c).)

The Complaint alleges in full: “Franchise tax Bureau more than 22 accounts. at Chase Bank, since 11-23-22 out of control with the name Manuel de Jesus Maldonado Ochoa or Manuel Maldonado. Block each one. Or Review. Stop.” (Compl. p. 1.)

Plaintiff appears to allege that his identity was stolen and/or he was defamed because there exist accounts at Chase with the same or similar name as Plaintiff. This court is aware of its duty to read the allegations liberally and in context (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1216, 1228) and to “emphasiz[e] substance over form.” (Ameron Internat. Corp. v. Insurance Co. of State of Pennsylvania (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1370, 1386). Moreover, as a general rule, “demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored.” (Lickiss v. Fin. Indus. Regul. Auth., (2012) 208 Cal. App. 4th 1125, 1135.)  

Even so, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to survive demurrer. The complaint is unintelligible and lacking any legal or factual substance as to the basis of this lawsuit. It is almost impossible to discern the precise nature of the dispute. This deprives Defendant of the opportunity to reasonably respond. (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal. App. 5th 677, 695.)

Accordingly, Defendant’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED in its entirety. Generally speaking, leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) Plaintiff must demonstrate this possibility at the hearing. If he does not, no leave to amend will be given.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   March 28, 2025 ___________________________________