MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC. vs DETCHIE

25CV021340: MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC. vs DETCHIE 08/19/2026 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.

25CV021340: MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC. vs DETCHIE 08/19/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 8D

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 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.

Defendants Isaac K Detchie’s (“Defendant”) demurrer to Plaintiff Midland Credit Management Inc.’s Complaint is ruled upon as follows.

The notice of demurrer does not provide notice of the Court's tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving party is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court's tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving party is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing.

Overview

This is a debt collection action. On September 9, 2025, Plaintiff filed its complaint, which alleges a single cause of action for breach of contract against Defendant. Broadly, Plaintiff alleges that it is a debt buyer as defined by Civil Code section 1788.50 subdivision (a). (Complaint at ¶ 4.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant had an account (the “Account”), for which he failed to make timely payments. (Id., at ¶ 5.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant defaulted on the Account on April 21, 2023. (Ibid.) Plaintiff contends that it purchased the Account on December 20, 2023 from Citibank, N.A. (Id., at ¶ 6.) Plaintiff further alleges that the Account balance at the time of charge-off was $8,187.95, that the date of default is April 21, 2023, and that the date of the last payment was May 31, 2024. (Id., at ¶ 7.)

Defendant now demurrers to the complaint. Defendant’s notice of demurrer states that Defendant:

will and hereby does demur to Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 430.10(b), (d), (e), (f), and (g), and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1320. The demurrer is made on the grounds that Plaintiff lacks capacity/standing; there is a defect/misjoinder of parties; the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action; the pleading is uncertain; and the pleading is unverified where required.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV021340: MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC. vs DETCHIE 08/19/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 8D

(Notice of Demurrer at 1:21-26.)

Defendant further states in his notice that he demurrers as to the following grounds:

(1) Lack of legal capacity/standing (CCP § 430.10(b));

(2) Defect or misjoinder of parties—Plaintiff is not the real party in interest (CCP § 430.10(d));

(3) Failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action (CCP § 430.10(e));

(4) Uncertainty—ambiguous and unintelligible pleading (CCP § 430.10(f));

(5) Failure to verify when required (CCP § 430.10(g)).

(Notice of Demurrer at 2:3-9.)

Plaintiff opposes arguing, generally, that it has “sufficiently alleged facts to establish standing, stated a valid cause of action for breach of contract and complied with the statutory requirements applicable to debt buyers under the California Civil Code. The complaint is neither uncertain nor deficient under the Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10.” (Opposition at 1:28-2:4.)

Trial is not yet set.

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 claim. (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,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV021340: MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC. vs DETCHIE 08/19/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 8D

but not contentions, deductions or 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.) A general demurrer does not admit contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the complaint; facts impossible in law; or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial notice. (Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318; William S. Hart Union High School Dist. v. Regional Planning Com. (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1612, 1616, fn. 2.)

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, 778.) “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.) 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

As a threshold matter, the Court must note that Defendant filed a “counter affidavit” (in addition to his meet and confer declaration) in which Defendant makes a number of factual attestations (as well as related legal argument). Defendant also attached a number of exhibits to its moving papers. Similarly, Plaintiff attached a number of exhibits directly to its opposition. Neither party submitted a request for judicial notice.

A demurrer only challenges defects that appear on the face of the pleading, or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) Accordingly, the Court did not consider any of the exhibits, nor factual attestations, submitted by the parties. To the extent that either party intended to seek judicial notice of any documents (and assuming any such documents are the proper subject of judicial notice), such a request is DENIED as neither party actually filed a request for judicial notice. Accordingly, the Court does not consider any of the documents attached to the opposition.

The Court now turns to the substance of the demurrer.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV021340: MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC. vs DETCHIE 08/19/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 8D

Lack of legal capacity/standing

As mentioned above, Defendant’s first ground for demurrer is “lack of legal capacity/standing (CCP § 430.10(b)).” In this regard, Defendant argues that “Plaintiff fails to allege and attach a complete, authenticated chain of assignment establishing ownership of Defendant's account. An assignee must prove the assignment by competent evidence.”

Section 430.10, subdivision (b) provides in its entirety: “[t]he person who filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue.” Thus, this subdivision allows a demurrer challenging a party's legal capacity, but it does not permit a challenge to 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.” (Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1605 [emphasis in original].)

Here, Defendant appears to conflate legal capacity with Plaintiff's standing to sue. A demurrer for lack of capacity to sue raises only the question of whether the plaintiff is free from general disabilities, such as infancy or insanity, or if they sue in a representative capacity, that the plaintiff actually possesses the character in which they sue. (Klopstock v. Superior Court of San Francisco (1941) 17 Cal.2d 13, 18.) There are few situations where the plaintiff may lack legal capacity to sue, for instance, where the plaintiff is a minor or lacks decision-making capability. (See e.g., Cal.

Civ. Proc. Code § 372, subd. (a).) As there is no basis on the face of the Complaint indicating that Plaintiff lacks capacity to sue, Defendant's demurrer pursuant to section 430.10, subdivision (b) is overruled.

To the extent that Defendant intended to challenge Plaintiff’s standing to file this action, the Court notes that Defendant should have given notice that it is moving pursuant to 430.10 subdivision (e) on the ground that the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (County of Fresno v. Shelton (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 996, 1009 [“Where it is alleged that a party lacks standing to sue, the complaint can be challenged by general demurrer for failure to state a cause of action in this plaintiff.”].)

Because Defendant did not give proper notice that it is not challenging standing pursuant to subdivision, this argument is not properly before this Court. However, even if Defendant properly noticed and challenged standing pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 subdivision (e), the demurrer would still be overruled. As discussed above, 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, supra, 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.) Here, the complaint alleges that it is a debt buyer as defined by Civil Code section 1788.50 subd., (a), that it is the sole owner of the debt” and that it purchased the Account on December 20, 2023. (Complaint at ¶¶ 4, 6.) Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV021340: MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC. vs DETCHIE 08/19/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 8D

has sufficiently alleged its standing to bring this action.

To the extent that Defendant argues that Plaintiff was required to allege and attach a complete, authenticated chain of assignment establishing ownership of Defendant's account, and that an “assignee must prove the assignment by competent evidence” (Moving MPA at 3:14-19), Defendant failed to provide any legal authority which requires a Plaintiff to make such an allegation, much less “prove the assignment by competent evidence” at the pleading stage. Although Defendant cites to Cockerell v. Title Ins. & Trust Co. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 284, 292 and Yvanova v.

New Century Mortgage Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 919, 935-36, the Court finds that these cases are inapposite. First, Cockerell, supra, 42 Cal.2d 284 does not concern a challenge on demurrer and thus does not provide any guidance concerning when a Plaintiff sufficiently alleges standing; nor does the case support Defendant’s contention that that Plaintiff was required to prove the assignment with competent evidence at the pleading stage. Second, while Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th 919 does concern a pleading challenge, in that case, the High Court addresses the “narrow question” of “whether a wrongful foreclosure plaintiff may challenge an assignment to the foreclosing entity as void” and concluded only that:

a home loan borrower has standing to claim a nonjudicial foreclosure was wrongful because an assignment by which the foreclosing party purportedly took a beneficial interest in the deed of trust was not merely voidable but void, depriving the foreclosing party of any legitimate authority to order a trustee's sale.

(Id., at Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th at pp. 935-936, 942-43.)

In other words, Yvanova does not purport to require Plaintiff to allege and attach a complete, authenticated chain of assignment in a debt collection case nor does it require any proof of assignment at the pleading stage. It is well-settled that cases are not authority for propositions not considered therein. (See, e.g., Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 327, 342.)

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s demurrer on the ground of “legal capacity/standing” is OVERRULED.

Defect or misjoinder of parties

Defendant’s next ground for demurrer is “[d]efect or misjoinder of parties—Plaintiff is not the real party in interest (CCP § 430.10(d))”. (Notice of Demurrer at 2:5-6.) In his moving points and authorities, Defendant argues “[d]ocuments suggest prior transfers or

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV021340: MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC. vs DETCHIE 08/19/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 8D

securitization; absent a clear chain, Plaintiff has not shown it is the real party in interest.” (Moving MPA at 4:1-2.)

A demurrer may be made on the ground that “[t]here is a defect or misjoinder of parties.' (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10 subd., (d).) “Failure to join an indispensable party is a ground for a demurrer.” (Organizacion Comunidad de Alviso v. City of San Jose (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 783, 791.) Moreover, “[a]ll persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if: [t]hey assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative, in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all these persons will arise in the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 378 subd. (a)(1).)

Here, Defendant makes no argument that some third party is a “indispensable” party to the action or that there is more than one plaintiff and who lacks a sufficient unity of interest. Rather, Defendant appears to, once more, challenge Plaintiff’s standing. Defendant cannot challenge a Plaintiff’s standing by demurring pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 subdivision (d). However, as discussed above, even if Defendant had properly challenged Plaintiff’s standing by demurring pursuant to subdivision (e), the Court would still overrule this ground as discussed above. Finally, because Defendant presents no legal argument (or judicially noticeable fact) to support a demurrer for defect or misjoinder of parties pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 subdivision (d), Defendant’s demurrer on this ground is OVERRULED.

Failure to state cause of action

Defendant also demurrers to the Complaint on the ground that it “[fails] to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action (CCP §430.10(e)”. (Notice of Demurrer at 2:6- 7.) In his moving points and authorities, Defendant argues that “[t]he Complaint alleges a balance due but omits the underlying contract terms, a transaction-level accounting, and facts establishing Defendant's breach or assent (for common claims such as account stated or open book).” (Moving MPA at 3:3-12.)

Here, the complaint brings one cause of action for breach of contract. “The elements of breach of contract are ‘(1) the contract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damages to plaintiff.’” (Kumaraperu v. Feldsted (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 60, 70.) The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated facts to constitute a cause of action as Plaintiff alleges that that on October 3, 2022, Defendant and Plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest entered into an agreement to establish an account for use by Defendant, for which Defendant promised to repay Plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest. (Complaint at ¶ 18.) The Complaint further

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV021340: MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC. vs DETCHIE 08/19/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 8D

alleges that on or about April 21, 2023, Defendant has breached the agreement by failing to pay for transactions made on the Account by the date and time set forth by the agreement and that Plaintiff has performed all obligations to Defendant except those obligations Plaintiff was prevented or excused from performing. (Id., at ¶ 19.) Finally, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was assigned the Account and indebtedness, and that Plaintiff is now the sole owner of the Account, that Defendant has failed to pay the balance due, and that Plaintiff has suffered the damages legally caused by Defendant’s breach of the agreement. (Id., at ¶ 20-21.) Indeed, Defendant makes no argument that Plaintiff failed to allege an element of the breach of contract cause of action.

To the extent that Defendant contends that Plaintiff was required to allege more to state a cause of action for breach of contract, Defendant fails to support such an argument with legal authority. Rather, Defendant once again cites to cases which are inapposite, or are distinguishable. (See Moving MPA at 3:3-12, citing to Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 450 [affirming judgment and dismissal of complaint after trial court sustained demurrer to Plaintiff’s causes of action for conversion, breach of constructive trust, declaration of a lien negligent and intentional interference with contract, money and received, and a general declaration of rights] and Midland Funding LLC v.

Romero 5 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1, 9-10 [holding, inter alia, that that assignee’s employee lacked personal knowledge of the foundation necessary for receipt of credit account documents as business records and thus the trial court erred in admitting credit account documents at trial].)

Finally, while not argued by Defendant, the Court nevertheless observes that, under California’s Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (Civil Code section 1788.50 through 1788.64), a “a debt buyer” (as defined by Civil Code section 1788.50) is subject to additional pleading requirements. Specifically, Civil Code section 1788.58 requires that a complaint brought by a “debt buyer” allege all of the following:

(1) That the plaintiff is a debt buyer.

(2) The nature of the underlying debt and the consumer transaction or transactions from which it is derived, in a short and plain statement.

(3) That the debt buyer is the sole owner of the debt at issue, or has authority to assert the rights of all owners of the debt.

(4) The debt balance at charge off and an explanation of the amount, nature, and reason for all post-charge-off interest and fees, if any, imposed by the charge-off creditor or any subsequent purchasers of the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV021340: MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC. vs DETCHIE 08/19/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 8D

debt. This paragraph shall not be deemed to require a specific itemization, but the explanation shall identify separately the charge-off balance, the total of any post-charge-off interest, and the total of any post-charge-off fees.

(5) The date of default or the date of the last payment.

(6) The name and an address of the charge-off creditor at the time of charge off and the charge-off creditor’s account number associated with the debt. The charge-off creditor’s name and address shall be in sufficient form so as to reasonably identify the charge-off creditor.

(7) The name and last known address of the debtor as they appeared in the charge-off creditor’s records prior to the sale of the debt. If the debt was sold prior to January 1, 2014, the debtor’s name and last known address as they appeared in the debt owner’s records on December 31, 2013, shall be sufficient.

(8) The names and addresses of all persons or entities that purchased the debt after charge off, including the plaintiff debt buyer. The names and addresses shall be in sufficient form so as to reasonably identify each such purchaser.

(9) That the debt buyer has complied with Section 1788.52.

(Civil Code § 1788.58 subd. (a).)

Civil Code section 1788.58, subdivision (b) further requires that a copy of the contract or “other document described in subdivision (b) of Section 1788.52”[1] be attached to the complaint. (Civil Code § 1788.58, subd. (b).)

Here, the Court also finds that the Complaint makes allegations sufficient to satisfy Civil Code section 1788.58 subdivisions (a) and (b). (Complaint at ¶¶ 4-14, Exhibits A & B.) Accordingly, the Court further rejects any argument that the Complaint fails to state a cause of action by failing to comply with the heightened pleading requirements of 1788.58.

Thus, for the foregoing reasons, this ground for demurrer is OVERRULED.

Uncertainty

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV021340: MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC. vs DETCHIE 08/19/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 8D

Defendant also contends that the Complaint is uncertain “[b]ecause the pleading relies on redacted schedules and vague references to electronic files without identifying Defendant's account” and thus “Defendant cannot reasonably frame a response, rendering the Complaint uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible within the meaning of § 430.10(f).” (Notice of Demurrer at 2:8; Moving MPA at 3:21-25.) The Court finds that allegations are not so uncertain that the Defendant cannot frame a response.[2] 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. (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695; see also Khoury v. Maly's of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

Thus, Defendant’s demurrer on the ground of uncertainty is OVERRULED

Failure to Verify When Required

Finally, Defendant demurrers to the Complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 subdivision (g), arguing that “[t]o the extent Plaintiff's claims are founded upon a written instrument or purport to state an account stated/open book requiring verification, the absence of a verification is a pleading defect. (CCP § 446.)” (Moving MPA at 4:4-7.)

First, Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 subdivision (g) provides in its entirety: “[i]n an action founded upon a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract is written, is oral, or is implied by conduct.” Here, the Defendant makes no argument that the Complaint fails to allege whether or not the contract was written, oral or implied by conduct. Thus, to the extent that Defendant demurrers to the Complaint pursuant to section 430.10 subdivision (g), Defendant’s demurrer is overruled.

To the extent that Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s Complaint was required to be verified, but is not, such an argument is also rejected as Plaintiff provides no legal authority which establishes that the Complaint was required to be verified. Rather, Defendant cites only to Code of Civil Procedure section 446 which provides that every pleading must be signed by the party or the party’s attorney, but the statute does not require verification of a complaint generally. Instead, verification is only required by statute in specific circumstances. (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 1166 [requiring that an unlawful detainer complaint be verified]; see also, Code Civ. Proc. Code § 761.020 [requiring that a complaint to quiet title be verified].)

Accordingly, this ground for demurrer is OVERRULED.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV021340: MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC. vs DETCHIE 08/19/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 8D

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, Defendant’s demurrer to the Complaint is OVERRULED in its entirety.

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

[1] Civil Code section 1788.52, subdivision (b) provides, in full:

(b) A debt buyer shall not make any written statement to a debtor in an attempt to collect a consumer debt unless the debt buyer has access to a copy of a contract or other document evidencing the debtor’s agreement to the debt. If the claim is based on debt for which no signed contract or agreement exists, the debt buyer shall have access to a copy of a document provided to the debtor while the account was active, demonstrating that the debt was incurred by the debtor. For a revolving credit account, the most recent monthly statement recording a purchase transaction, last payment, or balance transfer shall be deemed sufficient to satisfy this requirement. [2] The Court notes that, contrary to Defendant’s argument, the Complaint identifies

Defendant’s account by alleging the last four digits of the account number associated with the debt. (See Complaint at ¶8, and Exhibits A, B & C.)