Challenge Financial Services, Inc. v. Stephanie Enge

Case Name: Challenge Financial Services, Inc. v. Stephanie Enge

Case No.: 1-14-CV-271821

On or about June 8, 2013, defendant Stephanie Enge (“Defendant”), a self-represented litigant, entered into a contract with Bay Area Auto Imports to purchase a used 2006 Chrysler 300 (the “Vehicle”) for $26,363.52. (See Complaint, p. 3, ¶ BC-1, Ex. A.) Defendant breached the contract on or about November 22, 2013, by failing to make timely payments. (See Complaint, p. 3, ¶ BC-2.) The contract was assigned to plaintiff Challenge Financial Services, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) by Bay Area Auto Imports and Plaintiff alleges that the deficiency balance due, after repossession and sale of the Vehicle, is $7,356.22. (See Complaint, p. 3, ¶ BC-4.)

On October 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed the operative complaint against Defendant alleging a cause of action for breach of contract and various common counts.

Currently before the Court is the demurrer by Defendant to the complaint.

The demurrer to the complaint is OVERRULED. Defendant fails to identify any of the grounds set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 as the basis for the instant demurrer. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.10, 430.60 [providing that the grounds for a demurrer must be distinctly specified]; see also Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (Rutter Group 2013) ¶¶ 7:29, 7:30, p. 7(I)-16 [noting that a demurrer can be taken only upon the grounds specified in the statute].) Defendant argues only that “Plaintiff violated the Implied Warranty of Fitness” and the Vehicle’s engine was defective because the valve lifters stopped working approximately six months after she purchased the Vehicle. Even assuming arguendo that the engine did not comport with the implied warranty of fitness, Defendant fails to show how such defects affect the legal sufficiency of the complaint. (See Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 213–214 [“A demurrer tests only the legal sufficiency of the pleading.”].) Moreover, the facts asserted by Defendant regarding the condition of the engine are not alleged in the complaint and, therefore, cannot be considered on demurrer. (See Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 [noting that a demurrer only challenges defects on the face of the pleading or from judicially-noticeable matters].)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Copy the code below to your web site.
x 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *