JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Logan Schubert

Case Number

24CV00886

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 05/08/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion To Dismiss

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.: Michael S. Hunt, Anthony DiPicro, Alexander Balzer, Hunt & Henriques, LLP                         

For Defendant Logan Schubert: Self Represented

RULING

For all reasons discussed herein, the motion of Defendant Logan Schubert to dismiss the complaint of Plaintiff is denied. Defendant shall file and serve his answer to Plaintiff’s complaint on or before May 20, 2024.

This case was filed 2/20/24 and served on 2/23/24; it is a collections case for $23,755.29. The case is set for a Case Management Conference on 6/12/24 at 8:30am to set trial dates.

Background

On February 20, 2024, Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., filed a limited civil action against Defendant Logan Schubert alleging causes of action for common counts based on an open book account for money due and an account stated in writing. (See Compl., ¶ CC-1(a)(1) & (2).) As alleged in the complaint: Within the last four years, Defendant became indebted to Plaintiff on an open book account for money due and because an account was stated in writing between Plaintiff and Defendant in which it was agreed that Defendant was indebted to Plaintiff. (Ibid.) The reasonable value due from and unpaid by Defendant despite Plaintiff’s demand is $23,755.29. (Id. at ¶ CC-2.)

In response to the complaint of Plaintiff, Defendant filed five documents on March 27, 2024: (1) a “Motion To Dismiss” (the motion); (2) an “Answer … and Memorandum Of Law In Support” (the answer); (3) a “List Of Exhibits In Support Of Answer, Motion To Dismiss, and Memorandum Of Law In Support” (the exhibits); (4) an “Affidavit In Support Of Answer, Motion To Dismiss, And Memorandum Of Law In Support” (the affidavit); and (5) an “Affidavit Of Notice [of Discharge]” (the notice).

Notwithstanding the title of the documents filed by Defendant and further described above, in the answer and the motion to dismiss, Defendant requests an order under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that “payment was already tendered, in accord with Title 48 C.F.R. Ch.l, §53.228, UCC 3—307 and CISG.” (See Motion To Dismiss at p. 1, ll. 18-25; Answer at p. 5, ll. 16-21.) Defendant further asserts that, because a “discharge” was previously served and tendered, there exists a question as to whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the present action because, according to Defendant, there exists no present controversy or cause of action based on the discharge or settlement previously tendered to Plaintiff by Defendant. (Answer at p. 6, ll. 9-14.)

Plaintiff has filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss.

Analysis

Under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may file a pretrial motion to challenge an opposing party’s pleadings by raising defenses based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Fed. Rules Civ.Proc., rule 12(b)(1) & (6), 28 USC.)

Notwithstanding whether the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a party to raise these defenses by filing a motion to dismiss, the present action is brought in state Court. Therefore, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply here. (Quiles v. Parent (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 130, 145 [also noting state procedural rules apply to federal causes of action].)

Under the California Code of Civil Procedure, a motion to dismiss is expressly permitted on certain grounds including those specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 581. (Note: Undesignated code references shall be to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated.) Under subdivision (f) of section 581, the Court may dismiss a complaint if either party moves for dismissal after a demurrer is sustained without leave to amend or with leave to amend and the Plaintiff fails to amend within the time permitted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (f)(1) & (2).) Moreover, the provisions of section 581 “shall not be deemed to be an exclusive enumeration of the Court’s power to dismiss an action or dismiss a complaint as to a Defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (m).)

Considering the arguments expressly asserted by Defendant in the documents entitled as an answer and a motion to dismiss, and as a motion to dismiss filed under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is closely related in substance and functions in effect as a demurrer filed in state Court, the Court will construe the documents filed by Defendant, collectively, as a general demurrer filed for the purpose of obtaining a ruling as to whether the complaint filed by Plaintiff states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Laguna Village, Inc. v. Laborers’ Internat. Union of North America (1983) 35 Cal.3d 174, 182 [also noting that the “policy favoring resolution of disputes on their merits suggests flexibility rather than mechanical adherence to motion and pleading labels”]; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subds. (a)(3) & (8); Cottle v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1377-1378 [discussing the Court’s inherent powers to, among other things, fashion procedures to ensure the orderly and efficient conduct of the business of the Court].)

In ruling on a demurrer, the Court determines whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Moore v. Regents of University of California (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120, 125.) The pleading subject to demurrer is given a reasonable interpretation and is read as a whole, with all its parts in their context. (Ibid.) In addition, a demurrer assumes the truth of properly pleaded material allegations, but not of contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Ibid.) The Court also accepts as true facts that may be inferred from those expressly alleged and facts appearing in exhibits attached to the complaint. (McMahon v. Craig (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1502, 1509; Mead v. Sanwa Bank California (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 561, 567.) “If the complaint states a cause of action under any theory, regardless of the title under which the factual basis for relief is stated, that aspect of the complaint is good against a demurrer.” (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38.)

As further discussed above, the claim alleged by Plaintiff in the complaint is based on an open book account and an account stated in writing. The elements of these claims are effectively similar but not identical. (See Leighton v. Forster (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 467, 491 [setting forth the essential elements of an account stated]; State Compensation Insurance Fund v. ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 422, 449 [setting forth the elements of a cause of action for open book account].) To the extent Plaintiff alleges a cause of action for common counts, “[t]he common law, from which we derive our forms of pleading known as the ‘common counts,’ knew a count for ‘money lent’ which was the appropriate form in which to state a cause of action for money loaned.” (Jones v. Re–Mine Oil Co. (1941) 47 Cal.App.2d 832, 843.) To state a common count for money lent, the Plaintiff need only allege that the Defendant is indebted in a certain sum for money loaned by the Plaintiff and that the Defendant has not repaid the money. (Pleasant v. Samuels (1896) 114 Cal. 34, 36-38.) If a Plaintiff specifically pleads facts upon which the common count is based, a common count cause of action is subject to demurrer. (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 601.)

Defendant states that he agrees and effectively does not dispute that he became indebted to Plaintiff for a specified sum and that the debt alleged in the complaint is owed for some consideration. (See Answer at pp. 3-4.) Defendant further asserts that he tendered payment for the debt to Plaintiff. To support this contention, Defendant submits the affidavit, the notice, the exhibits, and what Defendant characterizes as “bonds for discharge”. (Id. at pp. 5-7 & 13-16.) On this basis, Defendant contends that Plaintiff has failed to allege the that it has not been paid by Defendant. (Id. at p. 5.)

The role of a demurrer is limited to testing the legal sufficiency of a complaint considering only those matters which are alleged on the face of the pleading or subject to judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994; Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The “face of the complaint” includes the allegations of the challenged pleading and matters shown in exhibits attached thereto and incorporated by reference, or matters appearing in a superseded complaint in the same action. (Frantz v. Blackwell (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 91, 94.) “[A] demurrer will be sustained only where the pleading is defective on its face.” (City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445, 459.)

The face of the complaint filed by Plaintiff does not disclose whether Defendant paid or otherwise caused to be discharged the debt allegedly owed to Plaintiff. In addition, the exhibits and other evidence offered by Defendant to support his contentions and arguments constitute matters extrinsic to the complaint which the Court cannot consider on demurrer. (See Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881 [error for Court to consider matters raised in memorandum and not otherwise pleaded]; Executive Landscape Corp. v. San Vicente Country Villas IV Assn. (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 496, 499-500 [also noting that the Court is precluded from weighing disputed facts on demurrer].) Furthermore, on demurrer, the Court does not consider whether or not a Plaintiff can prove his allegations. (Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Boyle (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1020, 1034.) For these reasons, and for present purposes only, Defendant’s motion is without merit. To the extent Defendant contends that he has paid or otherwise discharged the debt alleged in the complaint, Defendant may raise any appropriate defense in his answer to the complaint.

Defendant offers no further reasoned argument demonstrating that the complaint otherwise fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for common counts, open book account, or an account stated. Therefore, and for all reasons discussed above, the Court will deny Defendant’s motion for an order dismissing the complaint. Defendant shall file and serve his answer to Plaintiff’s complaint on or before May 20, 2024.

NOTICE: We will not have a Court reporter for your case. If counsel want a Court reporter, it will be your obligation to retain one for the trial. There can only be one official record of Court proceedings, and only a reporter appointed by the Court may report a Court proceeding.  Only one reporter will be allowed to report a Court proceeding at any given time.  If the parties cannot agree on a reporter, the Court will make the selection after you submit the name and address of the Court reporter each counsel has engaged. Counsel will notify the Court 10 days in advance of the trial date if you are going to provide a Court reporter. You may request that the electronic recording system that is already installed in the Courtroom be used. Information about that may be obtained from the Court’s website.