Judge: Robert S. Draper, Case: 22STCV23188, Date: 2023-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23188    Hearing Date: March 7, 2023    Dept: 78

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

Defendant Americredit Financial Services, Inc.’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED.

Defendant Wells Fargo Banking Dealer Service’s Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED.

At hearing, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s arguments as to whether leave to amend should be granted.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND   

This is an action for violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (“SCRA”). The Complaint alleges as follows.

Plaintiff Tenika Johns (“Plaintiff”) served as a member of the United States Armed Forces. (Compl. at p. 4.) Defendants Public Storage Corporation (“Public Storage”), Americredit Financial Services, Inc. d/b/a GM Financial (“GM Financial”), Wells Fargo, and Navy Federal Credit Union (“Navy Federal”) engaged in discriminatory practices in their dealings with Plaintiff, contrary to the SCRA. (Compl. at p. 2.)  

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On July 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed the Complaint alleging violation of the SCRA.

On August 23, 2022, GM Financial filed the instant Demurrer to the Complaint.

On August 24, 2022, Wells Fargo filed the instant Demurrer to the Complaint.

On December 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Response to Motion which the Court will consider an Opposition.

On February 28, 2023, Wells Fargo filed a Reply.

Also on February 28, 2023, GM Financial filed a Reply.

DISCUSSION 

                          I.          REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

In ruling upon demurrers, courts may consider matters that are proper for judicial notice.  (ABF Capital Corp. v. Berglass (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 825, 834.)  

The court may take judicial notice of “official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States,” “[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States,” and “[f]acts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Evid. Code § 452, subds. (c), (d), and (h).)  

Evidence Code Section 452 provides that judicial notice may be taken for facts and propositions that are “not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Cal. Evid. Code § 452(h).) Further, “a court may take judicial notice of [recorded documents and] the fact of a document's recordation, the date the document was recorded and executed, the parties to the transaction reflected in a recorded document, and the document's legally operative language, assuming there is no genuine dispute regarding the document's authenticity. From this, the court may deduce and rely upon the legal effect of the recorded document, when that effect is clear from its face.” (Scott v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 743, 745-755.)  

Taking judicial notice of a document is not the same as accepting the truth of its contents or accepting a particular interpretation of its meaning. (Fremont Indem. Co. v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 113-14 (citations and internal quotations omitted).) In addition, judges “consider matters shown in exhibits attached to the complaint and incorporated by reference.” (Performance Plastering v. Richmond American Homes of California, Inc. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 659, 665.) However, “[w]hen judicial notice is taken of a document . . . the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the document are disputable.” (Aquila, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 556, 569 (quoting StorMedia Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 449, 457 n. 9).) 

The party requesting judicial notice must (a) give each adverse party sufficient notice of the request to enable the adverse party to prepare to meet the request and (b) provide the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter. (Cal. Evid. Code § 453.) 

Here, Defendants Request Judicial Notice of the Following:

1.    Plaintiff Tanika Johns’ Complaint filed on July 18, 2022, in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in case number 22STCV23089. (Ex. A.)

2.    United States Department of Defense Status Report Pursuant to Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, dated May 23, 2022. (Ex. B.)

3.    Executive Department State of California Executive Order N-85-20, extending price gouging protections contained in Penal Code section 396(b),(c),(e), and (f) in Los Angeles through December 31, 2021. (Ex. C.)

Defendants’ Requests for Judicial Notice are GRANTED.

                        II.          DEMURRER

Defendants demur to the Complaint on two grounds: that the Complaint is fatally vague and uncertain, and that Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

A.   Uncertainty

First, Defendants demur on the grounds that the Complaint is fatally uncertain.

All that is required of a plaintiff, as a matter of pleading, even as against a special demurrer, is that his complaint set forth the essential facts of the case with reasonable precision and with sufficient particularity to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source, and extent of his cause of action. (Harman v. City and County of San Francisco (1972) 7 Cal.3d 150, 157.)   

A demurrer based on uncertainty only applies where the complaint is so bad that a defendant cannot reasonably respond—i.e., cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Though California courts take a liberal view toward in artfully drawn pleadings, it remains essential a complaint set forth the actionable facts with sufficient precision to inform the defendant of what the plaintiff is complaining about and what remedies are being sought. (Signal Hill Aviation Co. v. Stroppe (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 627, 636.) 

Here, Defendants argue that the Complaint names four defendants, but at no point does the Complaint explain the four defendants’ relationship to one another, or to Plaintiff.

Indeed, upon review of the Complaint, the Court finds that the Complaint does not contain sufficient factual allegations to place GM Financial or Wells Fargo on notice of what counts or claims are directed against it. Though the Complaint generally alleges violation of the SCRA, the Complaint does not indicate in what manner Defendants allegedly violated the SCRA and does not provide any information regarding a transaction between Plaintiff and Defendants.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED on this ground.

B.   Failure to State a Cause of Action

Defendants also demur on the ground that the Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action.

A court should sustain a demurrer if a complaint does not allege facts that are legally sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (CCP § 430.10, subd. (e).) As the Supreme Court held in Blank v. Kirwan (1985) Cal.3d 311: “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. . . . Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.” (Id. at p. 318; see also Hahn. v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747 [“A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. [Citation.]”)  

“In determining whether the complaint is sufficient as against the demurrer … if on consideration of all the facts stated it appears the plaintiff is entitled to any relief at the hands of the court against the defendants the complaint will be held good although the facts may not be clearly stated.”  (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 639.) 

A demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if the complaint, liberally construed, can state a cause of action under any theory or if there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured by amendment. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1081.) The demurrer also may be sustained without leave to amend where the nature of the defects and previous unsuccessful attempts to plead render it probable plaintiff cannot state a cause of action. (Krawitz v. Rusch (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 957, 967.) 

Here, Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot state a claim under the SCRA because the SCRA only applies to members of the armed forces who are on active duty. (Brewster v. Sun Tr. Mortg., Inc. (9^th Cir. 2014) 742 F.3d 876, 878.) Defendants note that Plaintiff is not currently on active duty. (Compl. Ex. 3 at pp. 110-12.) Accordingly, Defendants argue the SCRA does not apply to Plaintiff.

Defendants’ argument is well taken. Accordingly, Defendants’ Demurrer to the Complaint is SUSTAINED on this ground.

At hearing, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s argument as to leave to amend.

DATED: March 7, 2023 

____________________________

Hon. Robert S. Draper 

Judge of the Superior Court