Case Name: Thao T. Le v. Capital One Finance, et al.
Case No.: 18CV332772

I. Background

This action filed by self-represented plaintiff Thao T. Le (“Plaintiff”) against defendants Capital One Auto Finance (“Capital One”), Equifax, Experian Corp., Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and Innovis Data Solutions (“Innovis”) (collectively “Defendants”) arises out of an automobile financing transaction.

As alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to review transactions and inquire into records relating to an automobile financing transaction; recover or maintain possession of a 2014 RLX; compel issuance of a release of lien; and enjoin any efforts to repossess the vehicle. (Complaint at ¶ B.1.) The Complaint also makes reference to “monetization and securitization transactions”; alludes to issues of fraud; generally avers various reporting entities, including Innovis, reported negative information about Plaintiffs; and states there was a refusal to correct business records and provide proof of insurance. (Id. at ¶ 1.f.2., f.4, f.5, d.4, d.6.)

No causes of action are explicitly alleged. Instead, Plaintiffs vaguely state their Complaint is brought “pursuant to the Common law, Debt Collection Practices Laws, and Consumer Protection laws of this state.” (Id. at A.ii.) They also reference “intrastate and/or interstate private securities laws violation[s].” (Id. at ¶ b.g.)

Currently before the Court is the demurrers to the Complaint by Innovis and Capital One Auto Finance (“Capital One”). The Innovis demurrer was set for hearing on March 26, 2019, and continued to this date by the Court because it appeared that Plaintiff had made unsuccessful attempts to oppose rejected by the Clerk’s Office. Defense counsel advised the Court that a virtually identical opposition had been filed in a related case, and referred the Court to that opposition. As it turns out, Plaintiff has now filed a tardy opposition (filed March 26, 2019), labelled “Response to Demurrer and to Strike and Overrule.” Although it is very late, the Court will exercise its discretion to consider this opposition in the interest of expediting the consideration of pleading motions, and has concluded that the Defendants will not be prejudiced in light of the Court’s intended ruling.

II. Demurrer

A. Preliminary Issues

At the outset, Plaintiffs baldly assert Defendants’ demurrers are untimely. Though not clearly articulated, they suggest that the removal of the matter to federal court and subsequent remand back to state court resulted in Defendants “miss[ing] the chance to plead, or otherwise respond [to the Complaint][.]” (Opp. at p. 2.) Plaintiffs do not further elaborate, state what the deadline was for Defendants to respond to the Complaint, or cite any legal authority in support of their position. As such, their argument is unsubstantiated. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(b) [a supporting memorandum must include a discussion of legal authority in support of the position advanced]; see also People v. Dougherty (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 278, 282 [a point asserted without citation to authority may be disregarded].)

Plaintiff’s position otherwise lacks merit as it does not appear the demurrers are untimely. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.90, if an action is removed to federal court before a defendant has filed a response in the original court and the case is later remanded, the defendant has 30 days from the date the original court receives the case on remand to demur to the complaint, so long as an answer was not filed in federal court and that court did not rule upon a similar demurrer before the remand occurred. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.90, subd. (a)(2)(B).) Here, Defendants did not file a response to the Complaint before the action was removed to federal court, did not file an answer in federal court, and did not have a similar demurrer that was ruled on before the matter was remanded back to this Court. The Court received this matter back on remand on October 10, 2018 and Defendants had an extended period of time to file responses to the Complaint. As such, it was timely.

Next, the Court observes Plaintiffs may have intended to move to strike the demurrer in addition to opposing it. The opposition is titled “Response to Demurrer and to Strike and Overule [sic] the Same” (Opp. at p. 1, emphasis added) and Plaintiffs state in their conclusion that the demurrer should be “overruled and/or stricken as dilatory and inappropriate.” (Opp. at p. 2, emphasis added.) To the extent Plaintiffs’ intent was to move to strike the demurrer, they failed to comply with the procedural requirements for doing so as they neither filed a notice of motion to strike nor articulated an enumerated ground for moving to strike the demurrer. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 435, subd. (b) [a motion to strike must include a notice of motion]; Code Civ. Proc., § 436 [stating a pleading may be stricken on the grounds the matter is irrelevant, false, improper, or not drawn in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule or order of court].) As such, only Defendants’ demurrers and Plaintiffs’ opposition thereto are properly before the Court.

B. Merits of the Demurrer

Defendants demur to the Complaint on the grounds of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and uncertainty. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e), (f).)

With respect to the ground of uncertainty, Defendants assert they cannot determine from the Complaint what law or statutes they are pled to have violated. This argument is well-taken.

A demurrer for uncertainty may lie where the failure to label the parties and causes of action renders the complaint so confusing the defendant cannot tell what it is supposed to respond to. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.) Put another way, though demurrers for uncertainty are generally disfavored, they will be sustained when the allegations of the pleading are so unintelligible the defendant cannot reasonably respond them, i.e., he or she 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; see also Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 714, 719 [a pleading must set forth the essential facts of the case with sufficient precision and particularity to acquaint a defendant with the nature, source and extent of the cause of action].)

Here, Plaintiff does not clearly label the parties or causes of action in their pleading, and it is patently unclear what the gravamen of the Complaint is as related to either Defendant. The Complaint alleges Defendants aided in the securitization of Plaintiffs’ loan instrument (Complaint at ¶ f.2) and reported unspecified “negative information to others” (Id. at ¶ f.8). It does not, however, articulate how these facts resulted in a violation of law or enumerate what laws Plaintiff believes were violated by Defendants’ purported actions. As such, it cannot reasonably be determined what claims are directed against each individual Defendant and the Complaint is uncertain.

As for demurrer on the ground of failure to state sufficient facts, it will not be addressed as the Complaint is so uncertain the Court is unable to evaluate whether any claim has been properly pled.

Accordingly, the demurrer to the Complaint on the ground of uncertainty is SUSTAINED with 15 days’ leave to amend. The time to amend shall run from the date of service of this Order.

The Court will prepare the Order.