Demurrer to Complaint
JUNE 15, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 18 JUDGE: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________
02:00 PM 25-CIV-05822 NERIA CANONIZADO VS. JULIE RAMISH, ET AL. LINE 7
NERIA CANONIZADO MARK J. SOLOMON JULIE RAMISH JOHN R. GARNER
DEFENDANT: JULIE RAMISH, KHALED RAMISH, UMAR SALEEM’S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT
TENTATIVE RULING:
For the reasons(s) stated below, Julie Ramish’s, Khaled Ramish’s, and Umar Bilal Saleem’s (collectively, “Defendants”) demurrer, filed Oct. 16, 2025, which is directed to Plaintiff Neria Canonizado’s (“Plaintiff”) July 31, 2025 Complaint, is OVERRULED. Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).
Background
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that on Jan. 2, 2020, Defendants Julie & Khaled Ramish executed a promissory note, which promised repayment to Plaintiff for a $160,000 loan, at 10% interest, with a repayment deadline of Feb. 28, 2020. The Complaint alleges that Defendants Julie and Khaled Ramish have not repaid any portion of the loan. The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) “non-payment of promissory note;” (2) elder abuse; (3) “set aside fraudulent transfer;” and (4) conspiracy. Defendants’ demurrer argues that the Complaint’s First Cause of Action is time-barred by the Civil Procedure Section 337(a)’s four-year statute of limitations, and that because the other asserted claims are predicated on non-payment of the promissory note, they are also time-barred.
Plaintiff, conversely, contends that the Complaint was timely-filed because the Commercial Code Section 3118’s six-year statute of limitations applies.
It is notable to the Court that the Defendant has not filed a reply or otherwise addressed the Plaintiff’s argument.
Legal Standard
A general demurrer under Section 430.10(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure for failure to state a cause of action challenges defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack; or from matters outside the pleading that are judicially noticeable. Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 C3d 311, 318. “It is not necessary that the cause of action be the one intended by plaintiff. The test is whether the complaint states any valid claim entitling plaintiff to relief. Thus, plaintiff may be mistaken as to the nature of the case, or the legal theory on which plaintiff can prevail. But if the essential facts of some valid cause of action are alleged, the complaint is good against a general demurrer.” Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 7(I)-A (citations omitted)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
“For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, the demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded (i.e., all ultimate facts alleged, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law).” Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 7(I)-A (citations omitted).
JUNE 15, 2026 LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 19 JUDGE: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ “A demurrer based on a statute of limitations will not lie where the action may be, but is not necessarily, barred. In order for the bar to be raised by demurrer, the defect must clearly and affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint; it is not enough that the complaint shows that the action may be barred.” Comm. for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 32, 42 (quotations and citations omitted).
Discussion
The promissory note referenced in the Complaint is not attached to the Complaint. As noted above, on demurrer, the Court may consider only the Complaint’s allegations, plus exhibits to the Complaint, and matters subject to judicial notice.
Here, the face of the Complaint does not definitely show that the subject promissory note is a nonnegotiable contract governed by Code Civ. Proc. § 337, as Defendants contend. Having access to only the Complaint’s allegations, the Court cannot determine whether the promissory note constitutes a “negotiable instrument” under Commercial Code Section 3104, which defines a negotiable instrument.
The Complaint appears to describe a promissory note that is (1) in writing; (2) contains an unconditional promise to pay money; (3) identifies a fixed principal amount ($160k); (4) applies a fixed interest rate (10%); (5) has a definite maturity date (Feb. 28, 2020); and identifies an identifiable payee (Plaintiff).
Although Plaintiff’s contention that the subject promissory note qualifies as a “negotiable instrument” was apparently raised and discussed during the meet and confer, Defendants’ briefing includes no discussion of Comm. Code § 3104, and no argument as to why the promissory note here does not, or cannot, qualify as a “negotiable instrument” under § 3104.
Since the Court cannot determine from the face of the pleading whether the promissory note qualifies as a negotiable instrument under Comm. Code § 3104, which would trigger a six-year statute of limitations, the demurrer is OVERRULED.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept.11@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the California Rules of Court. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be efiled only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.