Citibank N.A. v. Svetlana L. Dayal
Citibank N.A. v. Svetlana L. Dayal
Case Number
25CV02873
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Wed, 08/20/2025 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
Demurrer of Defendant to Complaint
Tentative Ruling
For Plaintiff Citibank N.A.: Shane T. Wate, Hootan Atefyekta, Katie Zwarg, Julie M. VanderNoor Urner, Thomas J. Sebourn, Daria Iourtchenko, Robert S. Cox, Peter Tran, Suttell & Hammer, APC
For Defendant Svetlana Dayal: Self-represented
RULING
- For the reasons set forth herein, the demurrer of Defendant Svetlana Dayal to the complaint of Plaintiff Citibank N.A. is overruled in its entirety. Defendant Dayal shall file and serve her answer to the complaint on or before September 4, 2025.
- Trial is set for November 17, 2025, at 9am. Plaintiff to give notice.
Background
As alleged in Plaintiff Citibank N.A.’s complaint:
Plaintiff Citibank N.A. (Citibank or Plaintiff) entered into a written agreement on June 14, 2017, with Defendant Svetlana Dayal (Dayal or Defendant). (Complaint, ¶ BC-1 & exhibit A.) The attached agreement is a “Card Agreement” for payment on a credit card account. (Complaint, exhibit A.)
On or about January 7, 2025, Defendant breached the agreement by failing to make payments when due. (Complaint, ¶ BC-2.) Plaintiff has performed all obligations to Defendant except those obligations Plaintiff was prevented or excused from performing. (Complaint, ¶ BC-3.) Plaintiff suffered damages in the unpaid amount due for a total of $16,761.33. (Complaint, ¶¶ BC-2, BC-4.)
On May 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed its original complaint in this action in the form of a Judicial Council form complaint asserting one cause of action for breach of contract.
On June 6, 2025, Defendant filed a demurrer to the complaint.
On June 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed opposition to the demurrer.
On July 28, 2025, Defendant filed a reply to the opposition.
On August 1, 2025, Plaintiff inexplicably filed a request for entry of default and default judgment. The Court did not enter the default because Defendant has appeared in this action, has filed a responsive pleading, and thus is not now in default.
Analysis
“ ‘The rules by which the sufficiency of a complaint is tested against a general demurrer are well settled. We not only treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but also ‘give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.’ ” (Zhang v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 364, 370, internal quotation marks and citations omitted.)
(1) Arguments on Demurrer
Defendant’s demurrer consists of a list of check-the-box grounds (with the checked boxes and bolding omitted):
“1. Failure to State a Cause of Action (CCP § 430.10(e))
“The Complaint fails to attach or incorporate a signed, authenticated agreement.
“Plaintiff fails to plead the existence of a valid and enforceable contract.
“No evidence of consideration or mutual assent is alleged.
“The attached exhibit is unauthenticated, unsigned, and generic. Defendant
explicitly denies having ever seen or agreed to Plaintiff’s exhibit prior to the commencement of this lawsuit.
“2. Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (CCP § 430.10(b))
“Plaintiff fails to allege any sworn statement by a competent fact witness
establishing standing.
“There is no injury-in-fact properly alleged or supported found on in the records of this Court.
“The Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate claims where no evidentiary foundation has been laid.
“3. Uncertainty (CCP § 430.10(f))
“The Complaint is uncertain and unintelligible in that it does not specify the operative terms, date of formation, or mutual assent to the purported agreement.
“Defendant cannot reasonably respond to vague allegations unsupported by
evidence.
“4. Failure to Validate Debt as Required by Federal Law
“Plaintiff continued to pursue litigation despite Defendant’s prior lawful request under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (‘FCRA’) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (‘FDCPA’) for validation of the alleged debt.
“In response to demands by Defendant, Plaintiff failed to provide a signed
agreement or competent validation, violating 15 U.S.C. § 1692g and related
provisions.” (Demurrer, at pp. 1-2.)
In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the elements of the cause of action for breach of contract are sufficiently alleged and that verification is not required. Plaintiff also points out that Defendant has failed to engage in the meet and confer requirement prior to the filing of the demurrer.
In reply, Defendant argues, among other things, that Plaintiff has failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction or standing.
(2) Meet and Confer Requirements
“Before filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. If an amended complaint, cross-complaint, or answer is filed, the responding party shall meet and confer again with the party who filed the amended pleading before filing a demurrer to the amended pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).)
“As part of the meet and confer process, the demurring party shall identify all of the specific causes of action that it believes are subject to demurrer and identify with legal support the basis of the deficiencies. The party who filed the complaint, cross-complaint, or answer shall provide legal support for its position that the pleading is legally sufficient or, in the alternative, how the complaint, cross-complaint, or answer could be amended to cure any legal insufficiency.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(1).)
“The demurring party shall file and serve with the demurrer a declaration stating either of the following:
“(A) The means by which the demurring party met and conferred with the party who filed the pleading subject to demurrer, and that the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the objections raised in the demurrer.
“(B) That the party who filed the pleading subject to demurrer failed to respond to the meet and confer request of the demurring party or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(3).)
Defendant failed to file a meet and confer declaration. Ordinarily under such circumstances, the Court would require the parties to meet and confer before ruling on the demurrer. Under the circumstances here, the Court will rule on the demurrer to move the case forward.
(3) Pleading Requirements
Defendant’s demurrer in many places argues that the Plaintiff has failed to provide “competent evidence” to support Plaintiff’s claims. Defendant misunderstands the role of the complaint and the function of a demurrer.
“[P]leadings are allegations, not evidence ….” (Soderstedt v. CBIZ Southern California, LLC (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 133, 154.) “The primary function of a pleading is to give the other party notice so that it may prepare its case [citation] ….” (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, 240.)
“A complaint … shall contain …: [¶] (1) A statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.”(Code Civ. Proc., § 425.10, subd. (a)(1).) “[T]he general rule [is] that a complaint must contain only allegations of ultimate facts as opposed to allegations of evidentiary facts or of legal conclusions or arguments.” (Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276, 279, fn. 4.) “To survive a demurrer, the complaint need only allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action; each evidentiary fact that might eventually form part of the Plaintiff’s proof need not be alleged.” (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, 872.)
Under these rules, a Plaintiff is not required to provide evidence to support the Plaintiff’s claim as part of the complaint; a Plaintiff is only required to make allegations of ultimate facts. Moreover, “[i]n general, complaints need not be verified. Verification is necessary only when called for by a particular statute.” (Murrieta Valley Unified School Dist. v. County of Riverside (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1212, 1222.) There is no general requirement, and no specific requirement covering the subject matter of this complaint, that the Plaintiff provide evidence, a declaration, an affidavit, or a verified statement of anything as part of its complaint. Evidence will be required in later proceedings, but not at the pleading stage.
(4) Pleading Breach of Contract
“A cause of action for breach of contract requires pleading of a contract, Plaintiff’s performance or excuse for failure to perform, Defendant’s breach and damage to Plaintiff resulting therefrom.” (McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1489.)
As to the first element (the contract), Defendant argues that the complaint fails (i) to attach or incorporate a signed, authenticated agreement, (ii) to plead the existence of a valid and enforceable contract, (iii) allege evidence of consideration or mutual assent, (iv) attach an agreement that Defendant has seen or agreed to.
“A written contract may be pleaded either by its terms—set out verbatim in the complaint or a copy of the contract attached to the complaint and incorporated therein by reference—or by its legal effect. [Citation.]” (McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc., supra, 142 Cal.App.4th at p. 1489.)
Plaintiff has attached to the complaint a copy of the written contract that the Plaintiff alleges was made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. That is a sufficient allegation of the contract. Authentication of that agreement is a matter of evidence, not of pleading. (See Evid. Code, § 1400.) As explained above, the Plaintiff is not required to plead evidentiary matters.
“[A] party may accept a contract by conduct, as well as by words” (Cavalry SPV I, LLC v. Watkins (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 1070, 1081), so a signature is not necessarily required to show mutual assent. The contract alleged in the complaint itself provides, “This Agreement takes effect once you use your Card.” (Complaint, exhibit A, p. 6.) (Note: Citations to page numbers in the complaint are to the pdf page number of the complaint in the electronic document on file with the Court.) The complaint alleges that the agreement was made, hence, Plaintiff sufficiently alleged that Defendant assented to the contract. (Complaint, ¶ BC-1.)
Moreover, “[a] written instrument is presumptive evidence of a consideration” (Civ. Code, § 1614), and so consideration need not be pleaded for a written contract (Henke v. Eureka Endowment Ass’n (1893) 100 Cal. 429, 433). Lack of consideration, on the other hand, is a defense that must be pleaded by the Defendant in answer to the complaint. (Pastene v. Pardini (1902) 135 Cal. 431, 433–434.)
The agreement, as pleaded in the complaint and on its face, is a valid and enforceable contract. Defendant provides no legal basis in the demurrer upon which the contract, on its face, would not be valid and enforceable. To the extent the Defendant asserts facts not pleaded in the complaint to show invalidity or unenforceability, such facts must be pleaded in the answer as an affirmative defense. (See McDonald v. Filice (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 613, 625 [affirmative defenses to breach of contract must be pleaded by answer to be available].)
Accordingly, the demurrer on the grounds that the complaint fails to attach a signed, authenticated agreement, that the complaint fails to plead the existence of a valid and enforceable contract, that the complaint fails to allege evidence of consideration or mutual assent, and that the alleged contract is not actually the agreement of the parties is overruled.
Plaintiff has alleged its own performance under the contract. (Complaint, ¶ BC-3.) So, the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that element of a cause of action for breach of contract.
Defendant states as a ground for demurrer that “there is no injury-in-fact properly alleged or supported found on in [sic] the records of this Court.” (Demurrer, at p. 2.) Injury in the case of breach of contract means damages. (See Moore v. Centrelake Medical Group, Inc. (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 515, 531 [“ ‘Contract damages compensate a Plaintiff for its lost expectation interest. This is described as the benefit of the bargain that full performance would have brought.’ ”].) Plaintiff has alleged that Plaintiff has failed to make payments when due on an account balance of $16,761.33. That constitutes a sufficient allegation of contract damages. (See Nohl v. Del Norte County (1919) 45 Cal.App. 306, 309.) As discussed above, it is not necessary for the Plaintiff to provide evidence supporting allegations in its pleading. The demurrer on the grounds that no injury-in-fact is properly alleged or supported is overruled.
Defendant also demurs on the grounds that Plaintiff “continued to pursue litigation despite Defendant’s prior lawful request under the [FCRA] and [FDCPA] for validation of the alleged debt” and that “[i]n response to demands by Defendant, Plaintiff failed to provide a signed agreement or competent validation, violating 15 U.S.C. § 1692g and related provisions.” (Demurrer, at p. 2.) To whatever extent these statutes may have application to Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant, if any, the demurrer on these grounds is based upon assertions of fact, i.e., Defendant’s communications to Plaintiff, that are not alleged in the complaint. “Because a demurrer challenges defects on the face of the complaint, it can only refer to matters outside the pleading that are subject to judicial notice.” (Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 482.) The demurrer is overruled on these grounds.
Defendant also demurs on the grounds of uncertainty, which is a special demurrer. (Demurrer, at p. 2; see Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f); Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 643 [demurrer for uncertainty is a special demurrer].)
This is a limited civil case (Complaint, at p. 1); special demurrers are not allowed in limited civil cases (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (c)).
(5) Jurisdiction and Standing
Defendant demurs to the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court on the ground that “the Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate claims where no evidentiary foundation has been laid.” (Demurrer, at p. 2.) As discussed above, no evidentiary foundation is required in this pleading; the Plaintiff is only required to make allegations of ultimate fact.
“[A] demurrer to the jurisdiction of a Court of general jurisdiction lies only where the want of jurisdiction appears affirmatively on the face of the complaint.” (Harden v. Superior Court (1955) 44 Cal.2d 630, 636.) “California’s superior Courts are Courts of general jurisdiction, which means they are generally empowered to resolve the legal disputes that are brought to them.” (Quigley v. Garden Valley Fire Protection Dist. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 798, 808.) No defect in jurisdiction affirmatively appears on the face of the complaint. The demurrer on the grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction is overruled.
Defendant also demurs on the ground that “Plaintiff fails to allege any sworn statement by a competent fact witness establishing standing.” (Demurrer, at p. 2.) As discussed above, sworn statements are not necessary for this pleading. Furthermore, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged standing.
“ ‘There is a difference between the capacity to sue, which is the right to come into Court, and the standing to sue, which is the right to relief in Court.’ [Citation.] ‘Incapacity is merely a legal disability, such as infancy or insanity, which deprives a party of the right to come into Court. The right to relief, on the other hand, goes to the existence of a cause of action. It is not a plea in abatement, as is lack of capacity to sue.’ [Citation.]” (Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1604.) “A Plaintiff lacks standing to sue if, for example it is not a real party in interest.” (Id. at p. 1604, fn. 4.)
“The real party in interest is generally the person who has the right to sue under the substantive law.” (River’s Side at Washington Square Homeowners Assn. v. Superior Court (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1209, 1225.) “With respect to the contract causes of action, it goes without saying that a party to a contract or one for whom the contract was intended to benefit may bring actions related to such contracts.” (Market Lofts Community Assn. v. 9th Street Market Lofts, LLC (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 924, 932.)
Plaintiff has alleged that it is a party to the contract. (Complaint, ¶ BC-1 & exhibit A, pp. 5, 6.) Plaintiff has thus sufficiently alleged standing to assert this action for breach of contract.
The demurrer on the grounds of lack of standing will be overruled.