VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC vs NUNEZ

25CV012610: VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC vs NUNEZ 07/22/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 8D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-7719 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 8D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with

25CV012610: VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC vs NUNEZ 07/22/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 8D

a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

****NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT WILL MOVE TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION*****

Defendant in pro per Daisey Nunez’s (“Defendant”) demurrer to Plaintiff Velocity Investment, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint is ruled on herein.

Defendant’s motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 2.108 regarding the spacing and numbering of lines.

Factual Background

This is a debt collection action. Plaintiff is a debt buyer engaged in the business of purchasing charged-off consumer debt. (Compl., ¶ 5.) The debt at issue arises from a consumer loan account issued to Defendant by WebBank under account ending in 1861. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Plaintiff alleges a single cause of action for breach of contract based on Defendant’s alleged outstanding consumer debt obligation.

On June 10, 2026, the Court continued this matter and ordered Defendant to satisfy the meetand-confer requirements under Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41. Defendant filed a meetand-confer declaration on June 29, 2026.

Legal Standard

The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the pleading it challenges by raising questions of law. (Salimi v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 216, 219; Nordlinger v. Lynch (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1271.) A demurrer “tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) The purpose of a demurrer is to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.)

For the purpose of determining the effect of a complaint, its allegations are liberally construed, with a view toward substantial justice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 452; Amarel v. Connell (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 137, 140-141; Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 43, fn. 7.) In this respect, the Court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012610: VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC vs NUNEZ 07/22/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 8D

conclusions of fact or law, and considers matters which may be judicially noticed. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1111-1112.) Extrinsic evidence may not properly be considered on demurrer. (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881; Hibernia Savings & Loan Soc. v. Thornton (1897) 117 Cal. 481, 482.)

A demurrer may be sustained only if the complaint lacks any sufficient allegations to entitle the plaintiff to relief. (Financial Corp. of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 764, 768.) “Plaintiff need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled to some relief we are not concerned with plaintiff’s possible inability or difficulty in proving the allegations of the complaint.” (Highlanders, Inc. v. Olsan (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 690, 696-697.) “[Courts] are required to construe the complaint liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated, given the assumed truth of the facts pleaded.” (Picton v.

Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.) A demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pled and the sole issue raised by a general demurrer is whether the facts pled state a valid cause of action – not whether they are true. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.)

Discussion

Defendant demurs to the Complaint on the grounds that it fails to state facts sufficient factual allegations to constitute a cause of action. (See Am. Notice of Motion, filed Mar. 13, 2026.) Defendant also demurs on the ground that the Complaint is uncertain as to who the original creditor is, what the terms of the agreement are, when the alleged default occurred, and how the amount of the obligation was calculated. Defendant further demurs on the ground that the Complaint provides no evidentiary foundation or factual allegation to support Plaintiff’s legal right to enforce the alleged obligation and therefore lacks standing to bring this action.

Plaintiff opposes the demurrer. Plaintiff first opposes the demurrer the grounds that Defendant improperly challenges Plaintiff’s evidence rather than the sufficiency of the pleading. Plaintiff asserts that it alleged all necessary facts for breach of contract, including Plaintiff’s standing and ownership of the debt. Plaintiff also opposes on grounds that its Complaint complies with the standards under the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act and Uniform Commercial Code; however, the Court notes that Defendant did not address these statutes in her demurrer.

“To establish a cause of action for breach of contract, the plaintiff must plead and prove (1) the existence of the contract, (2) the plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant’s breach, and (4) resulting damages to the plaintiff.” (Maxwell v. Dolezal (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 93, 97-98.) Where the alleged contract is written, the plaintiff may either attach the contract itself or may plead the legal effect of the contract. (Id. at p. 98.)

Here, Plaintiff has alleged in the Complaint that, under the terms of the agreement between Defendant and WebBank, Plaintiff agreed to provide consumer loan funds to Defendant, who

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012610: VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC vs NUNEZ 07/22/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 8D

agreed to repay amounts advanced including interest, fees, and other charges. (Compl., ¶ 14.) The Complaint also attaches, as Exhibit A, a “Loan Summary” that includes the “Borrower Agreement.” (Id. at ¶ 10, Exh. A.) Plaintiff has also alleged that Defendant accepted the agreement by using the consumer loan account to make purchases, take cash advances, and/or make balance transfers. (Id. at ¶ 15.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s breach through failure to make payments as agreed (id. at ¶ 16) and damages in the amount of $1,024.99 (id. at ¶ 17). Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant is the sole owner of the Account at issue and that Plaintiff purchased the debt on February 28, 2024. (Id. at ¶¶ 6-7.)

Plaintiff has therefore alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for breach of contract. Defendant’s demurrer on this ground is therefore OVERRULED.

Next, Defendant demurs on the basis that the Complaint is uncertain as to the original creditor, the terms of the agreement, the time of the alleged breach, and the amount of obligation. Where a demurrer is made upon the ground of uncertainty, it must distinctly specify exactly how or why the pleading is uncertain, and where such uncertainty appears (by reference to page and line numbers of the complaint). (See Fenton v. Groveland Comm. Services Dist. (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 797, 809 [disapproved on other grounds by Katzberg v. Regents of Univ. of Calif. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 300, 328].) Demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and are only granted where the complaint is so muddled that the defendant cannot reasonably respond. The favored approach is to clarify theories in the complaint through discovery. (See Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

Contrary to Defendant’s assertions on demurrer, the Complaint identifies the original creditor as WebBank (Compl., ¶ 6), the terms of the alleged agreement (id. at ¶ 14, Exh. A), the date of last payment (id. at ¶ 8(d)), and the balance at charge-off (id. at ¶ 8(c)). The Court finds that the allegations in the Complaint are not so uncertain that Defendant cannot frame a response. Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer on grounds of uncertainty is OVERRULED.

Defendant lastly demurs on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence of its legal right to enforce the alleged obligation or its status as successor-in-interest to WebBank. However, these arguments are not appropriate for consideration on demurrer, as a demurrer admits all well-pleaded facts. (See Blank v. Kirwan, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318.) Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer is OVERRULED on this ground as well.

Disposition

Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)