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 original 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. 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 Plaintiff; and states there was a refusal to correct business records and provide proof of insurance.

After demurrer was sustained to the original Complaint with leave to amend, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

Currently before the Court are the demurrers to the FAC by Innovis Data Solutions (“Innovis”), and Experian Information Solutions, Inc., (erroneously sued as Experian Corp.), and Equifax Information Services, L.L.C. (erroneously sued as Equifax) (credit reporting agencies, and collectively “CRA Defendants”). The demurrers were timely and properly served, and are unopposed.

The CRA Defendants again demur to the FAC 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).)

As alleged in the FAC, 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. The Complaint also makes reference to “monetization and securitization transactions”; alludes to issues of fraud; generally avers various reporting entities, including the CRA Defendants, reported negative information about Plaintiff; and states there was a refusal to correct business records and provide proof of insurance.

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].)

The prior order on demurrer concluded that Plaintiff did not clearly label the parties or causes of action in their pleading, and it was patently unclear what the gravamen of the Complaint is as related to each Defendant. The FAC does no better. Plaintiff alleges in the FAC that the CRA Defendants aided Capital One “as aiders and enforcers” and reported unspecified “negative information to others.” Without really explaining what Capital One did, Plaintiff alleges that “CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE STARTED THE CHAIN REACTION AND IS JOINTLY REPONSIBLE FOR HARM AND INJURY STEMMING FROM THE COMPLAINT STATED HEREIN.” (Original sentence in the FAC is stated in all caps.) As such, it cannot reasonably be determined what claims are directed against each Defendant and the FAC remains uncertain.

With respect to the ground of uncertainty, Defendants assert they cannot determine from the FAC what law or statutes they are alleged to have violated. This argument is well-taken. Here, Plaintiffs still do not clearly label the parties or causes of action in their pleading, and it is patently unclear what the gravamen of the FAC is as related to each Defendant. No causes of action are explicitly alleged. Instead, Plaintiff vaguely states their FAC is brought “pursuant to the Common law, Debt Collection Practices Laws, and Consumer Protection laws of this state.” They also reference “intrastate and/or interstate private securities laws violation[s].” The FAC does not specify what negative information the CRA Defendants reported about them, in what way it was allegedly false, or who they reported it to. The FAC fails to specifically state what actions resulted in violations of law, or to specify what laws were violated.

As the Plaintiff have failed to correct the many deficiencies in the FAC, the demurrer to the FAC is SUSTAINED.

Plaintiff did not file any opposition to the demurrers. Plaintiff has the burden to show a reasonable possibility that amendment could cure the defects in the pleading. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) As Plaintiff failed to respond at all to the demurrers, the Court cannot tell how the defects in the FAC could be cured by amendment and it therefore appears that granting leave to amend would be futile. Accordingly, leave to amend is denied.

After the order on this demurrer has been served, the CRA Defendants shall submit a judgment of dismissal after compliance with Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.

The Court will prepare the Order.