MARR vs JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.

25CV109026: MARR vs JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Demurrer to First Amended Complaint; filed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Defendant) CRS# 952364476517 in Department 22

Tentative Ruling - 08/24/2026 Han N. Tran

The Demurrer filed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. on 05/22/2026 is Sustained in Part.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff Michael Marr (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on January 30, 2025. Following this court’s sustaining in part Defendant JPMorgan Chase, N.A. (“Defendant”)’s demurrer to his initial complaint, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on March 24, 2026. Plaintiff alleges that on or about September 9, 2024, wrongfully cancelled a Chase United Quest Card he had previously been approved for. (FAC, ¶¶ 5, 6.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant discriminated against him due to his age and/or because he exercised his right to dispute charges. (Id. at ¶¶ 17-19.)

The complaint brings causes of action for (1) violation of the Holden Credit Denial Disclosure Act; and (2) Unfair Business Practices. Defendant filed a demurrer as to both causes of action on May 22, 2026. LEGAL STANDARD Demurrer A demurrer tests whether a complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action under any possible legal theory. (Gutierrez v. Carmax Auto Superstores California (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1234, 1244.) The term “any” is a broad term that means “of whatever kind” or “without restriction.” (Ibid.)

When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations in context. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081.) On demurrer, we admit all material facts properly pleaded as true, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. (Lauckhart v. El Macero Homeowners Association (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 889, 898.) Any defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone, not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. (Code Civ.

Proc, §§ 430.30, 430.70.) Relevant here, demurrers for uncertainty are strictly construed and disfavored. (Chen v. Berenjian (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 811, 822.) In fact, a demurrer for uncertainty should only be sustained if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond. (Lickiss v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.) Even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, a demurrer for uncertainty should be overruled where ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures or where the relevant facts are presumptively within the defendant’s knowledge. (Chen, supra, 33 Cal.App.5th at p. 822; Khoury v.

Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Where the complaint is defective, it ordinarily constitutes an abuse of discretion to sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital District (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 970–971.)

DISCUSSION 25CV109026: MARR vs JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Demurrer to First Amended Complaint; filed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Defendant) CRS# 952364476517 in Department 22 “A party demurring to a pleading that has been amended after a demurrer to an earlier version of the pleading was sustained shall not demur to any portion of the amended complaint, crosscomplaint, or answer on grounds that could have been raised by demurrer to the earlier version of the complaint, cross-complaint, or answer.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.31(b).)

Defendant first argues that both of Plaintiff’s claims are preempted by the National Bank Act. Because Plaintiff’s remaining claims in his FAC are based on the same statutes as presented in his first Complaint, Defendant could have, but did not, raise this argument in its first demurrer. Thus, Defendant is foreclosed from raising preemption in this renewed demurrer and the court disregards this argument for purposes of resolving this demurrer. Defendant may raise this issue in a dispositive motion if it is so inclined.

First Cause of Action – Holden Credit Denial Disclosure Act – Civil Code § 1787 et seq.

Civil Code section 1787.2 requires creditors to provide the reason(s) for denial of credit. Subsection (c) states that “[a] statement of reasons meets the requirements of this section only if it contains the specific reasons for the credit denial.”

Defendant contends that the claim as stated in the FAC fails because it does not “plead a coherent timeline.” The court agrees to an extent. It appears there was a typographical error in either Paragraph 6 of the FAC, which states that Defendant cancelled the credit card on September 9, 2024, or Paragraph 16, wherein Plaintiff alleges that he received a notice of cancellation on September 9, 2023, which advised that the card would be cancelled on October 6, 2023. (FAC, ¶ 16.) In his opposition, Plaintiff cites to the 2024 date in Paragraph 6, but does not otherwise address Defendant’s assertions regarding a confused timeline.

Defendant also aptly notes that the FAC is potentially contradictory as to whether the card was actually cancelled on September 9 as alleged in Paragraph 6, or Plaintiff received a notice of cancellation specifying October 6 as the date the cancellation would take place, as alleged in Paragraph 16.

Given these discrepancies, the court is inclined to sustain Defendant’s demurrer with leave to amend on the grounds that the FAC is uncertain as to time. Plaintiff must amend the FAC to accurately state the sequence of events supporting this claim. The court also suggests that Plaintiff include the dates, or estimated dates, that Plaintiff initially applied and was approved for the credit card at issue.

Defendant’s other challenges to this cause of action were addressed in the previous demurrer briefing. Paragraph 9 of the FAC sufficiently addresses the deficiency identified in the court’s prior order. The court rejected Defendant’s arguments as to whether the reason it gave to Plaintiff for canceling the card was sufficient; the allegations are sufficient to withstand a pleadings challenge.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV109026: MARR vs JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Demurrer to First Amended Complaint; filed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Defendant) CRS# 952364476517 in Department 22

Defendant’s demurrer is therefore SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND as to this cause of action in accordance with the above.

Second Cause of Action – Unfair Business Practices

The court previously rejected Defendant’s contention that this claim was not pled with sufficient particularity as to the unfair business practice being alleged because Plaintiff identified the statutes he believed to have been violated and described the unfair business pratcie, but sustained Defendant’s demurrer with leave to amend on the grounds that Plaintiff had failed to allege loss of money or property. Plaintiff addressed this deficiency in Paragraph 20 of the FAC, which alleges that he lost money in the form of the miles, rights, benefits, and rewards he had accrued through use of the card and participation in the United Quest Card Rewards Program. This is sufficient to overcome a pleadings challenge.

Defendant’s demurrer is therefore OVERRULED as to this cause of action.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ demurrer is SUSTAINED IN PART. Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an amended complaint consistent with this order within 20 days of entry of this order.

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING? THROUGH eCOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search” 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling” 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select “Proceed” BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK (dept22@alameda.courts.ca.gov) and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely. Notice via BOTH eCourt AND email is required. The tentative ruling will become the ruling of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV109026: MARR vs JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Demurrer to First Amended Complaint; filed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Defendant) CRS# 952364476517 in Department 22 the court if no party contests the tentative ruling.