Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV05030, Date: 2025-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV05030    Hearing Date: April 3, 2025    Dept: 45

TANGELA TERRY vs AC AUTO PAY, et al.

demurrer to the first amended complaint

Date of Hearing:        April 3, 2025                                      Trial Date:       None set.

Department:              45                                                        Case No.:        24STCV05030

Moving Party:            Defendant AC Autopay, LLC

Responding Party:     Plaintiff Tangela Terry

Meet and Confer:      Yes. (Summerfield Decl.)

BACKGROUND

On February 28, 2024, Plaintiff Tangela Terry filed a complaint against AC Auto Pay, Ailyah Wilson and Joe Larue. Plaintiff amended their complaint on September 13, 2024, naming only Defendant AC Auto Pay as a defendant. On January 22, 2025, Plaintiff dismissed Aliyah Wilson and Joe Larue.

The sole cause of action against Defendant AC Auto Pay is for breach of contract.

[Tentative] Ruling

Defendant AC Autopay LLC’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

DISCUSSION

Defendant AC Autopay LLC demurs to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint on the grounds (i) there is a defect or misjoinder of parties under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(d); (ii) Plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against AC Autopay; and (iii) the cause of action is vague and uncertain.

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. In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “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. (CCP §§ 430.30, 430.70.) At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the claim against him. (Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.) A “demurrer does not, however, admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the pleading, or the construction of instruments pleaded, or facts impossible in law.” (S. Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732 (internal citations omitted).) 

Defendant first argues Plaintiff’s complaint fails to satisfy the basic rules of pleading. Specifically, Plaintiff has failed to set forth any facts in the FAC, much less with the reasonable precision and particularity required by law. The court agrees. As noted by Defendant, “[a] complaint must contain a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action in ordinary and concise language. (§ 425.10, subd. (a)(1).)  This requirement obligates the plaintiff to allege ultimate facts that, taken as a whole, apprise the defendant of the factual basis of the claim.  [Citation.]  The requirement that the complaint allege ultimate facts forming the basis for the plaintiff’s cause of action is central to the relation-back doctrine and the determination of whether an amended complaint should be deemed filed as of the date of the original pleading.  [Citation.]”  (Scholes v. Lambirth Trucking Co. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 590, 597-598.) Upon review of the amended complaint, Plaintiff does not allege the essential elements of breach of contract. The only allegations against Defendant are “shark loan/predatory lending” and “strife/malicious intent”.

Next, Defendant demurs to the complaint on the grounds Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim is irretrievably flawed. Defendant contends although Plaintiff attaches a document to the FAC that both she and AC Autopay signed, titled “Note, Security Agreement and Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement,” which is presumably the contract at issue, there are no other essential allegations alleged. The court agrees Plaintiff does not allege her performance or excuse for non-performance, any breach by AC Autopay, causation or damages. The court notes as part of the exhibits, there is an attachment where Plaintiff alleges she was confused or had questions regarding the terms of the contract. However, as noted by Defendant, courts will not set aside contractual obligations “merely because one of the parties claims to have been ignorant of or misunderstood the provisions of the contract.” (Estate of Eskra (2022) 78 Cal. App. 5th 209, 228.)

The court also notes Plaintiff makes several arguments in her opposition, none of which Plaintiff actually alleges in her complaint. As such, cannot be considered on demurrer.

Lastly, Defendant demurs to the complaint on the grounds Plaintiff fails to name a necessary and indispensable party. Defendant maintains the last provision of the contract attached to the FAC states that AC Autopay “assigns all right, title and interest to the loan evidenced by this Note to: Exeter Finance, LLC.” Because the complaint is inextricably tied to this contract, Exeter Finance is a necessary party because its interests may be impaired in its absence if it is not joined in this action.

If Plaintiff is maintaining her claims based on the attached contract and on the loan, then Exeter Finance, LLC is a necessary party.  That party must be added to the complaint. 

The court grants 30 days leave to amend.