Case Number: BC579520??? Hearing Date: June 13, 2016??? Dept: 31
Defendant Veros Credit, LLC?s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED as to the fourth and fifth causes of action and GRANTED as to the sixth cause of action for quiet title with 10 days leave to amend.
Defendant Vero moves for judgment on the pleadings as to each of the three causes of action the ground that the FAC fails to specifically identify any of the vehicles alleged to have been converted by Defendant Vero. The FAC merely refers to the vehicles at issue as 13 consignment vehicles (FAC ? 19), financed by one of three financing defendants. (FAC ? 22.)
As to the conversion and declaratory relief causes of action, the failure to identify the specific vehicles is insufficient to render the FAC defective. The level of specificity required in a modern pleading has been described as follows:
It has been consistently held that a plaintiff is required only to set forth the essential facts of his case with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint a defendant with the nature, source and extent of his cause of action. If there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action, it is error to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend. The particularity required in pleading facts depends on the extent to which the defendant in fairness needs detailed information that can be conveniently provided by the plaintiff; less particularity is required where the defendant may be assumed to have knowledge of the facts equal to that possessed by the plaintiff. There is no need to require specificity in the pleadings because modern discovery procedures necessarily affect the amount of detail that should be required in a pleading.
Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1099. As to the conversion and declaratory relief causes of action, Plaintiff alleges the property at issue consists of vehicles consigned to Defendant One Stop, owned by Arnold Guevara, that were financed by Vero in 2013. The specific identity of the vehicles, for example their VIN numbers, are issues properly explored in discovery, and not a basis upon which to grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The FAC adequately states facts sufficient to state a cause of action for conversion and declaratory relief. Accordingly the motion is DENIED as to the fourth and fifth causes of action.
However, as to the quiet title cause of action, the FAC is fatally deficient. A cause of action for quiet title is strictly governed by statute. CCP ? 761.020. A quiet title cause of action must provide ?[a] description of the property that is the subject of the action. In the case of tangible personal property, the description shall include its usual location.? CCP ? 761.020(a). The FAC fails to provide any usual location for the subject vehicles. Moreover, a complaint asserting a quiet title cause of action must be verified. CCP ? 761.020; Lewis v. Superior Court (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1850, 1866 (?the complaint was not verified as required by the quiet title statute.?) The FAC does not contain the requisite verification. As a result, the motion is GRANTED as to the third cause of action for quiet title.
?In the case of either a demurrer or a motion for judgment on the pleadings, leave to amend should be granted if there is any reasonable possibility that the plaintiff can state a good cause of action.? Gami v. Mullikin Medical Ctr. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 870, 876. The minor defects in the quiet title cause of action are easily rectified. Thus, Plaintiff is GRANTED 10 days leave to amend the quiet title cause of action.
In Opposition, Plaintiff also requests leave to amend to add a negligence cause of action against all Defendants. Plaintiff must file a noticed motion for leave to file an amended complaint so that the Court and parties to determine whether the addition of the negligence cause of action is warranted.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.