SAWHNEY vs SNHU, et al.

25CV114273: SAWHNEY vs SNHU, et al. 07/16/2026 Hearing on Demurrer DEFENDANT LA FAMILIA’S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; filed by La Familia (Defendant) CRS# 406849285503 in Department 20

Tentative Ruling - 07/14/2026 Karin Schwartz

The Demurrer filed by La Familia on 04/01/2026 is Sustained without Leave to Amend.

Defendant La Familia’s Demurrer to the Third Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Sagar Sawhney (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action in pro per on March 17, 2025, against Defendants Southern New Hampshire University (“SNHU”) and seven individual SNHU faculty members. On October 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint and added Defendant La Familia (“La Familia”) to the case.

The operative Third Amended Complaint filed on February 26, 2026 alleges, inter alia, breach of contract, negligence, promissory estoppel, fraud, third-party beneficiary breach, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage

Plaintiff alleges that he was enrolled in a Master of Arts Clinical Mental Health Counseling program at SNHU in 2022-2023. (TAC ¶ 8.) The program required him to complete a practicum of 100 total hours, inclusive of 40 direct client hours. (Id. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff accepted a position with practicum site La Familia. (Id. ¶10.) Plaintiff began working with La Familia in August 2022, but was advised that his work before the SNHU term began was in violation of ethical codes. (Id. ¶¶ 13-17.) Plaintiff alleges that he completed over 80 hours at the La Familia site, but was provided with only 7 direct client hours. (Id. ¶ 19.)

Plaintiff was referred to SNHU’s Student Advancement and Dispositions (“SADS”) committee twice, in September 2022 and January 2023. (TAC ¶¶ 16, 22.) SNHU’s Professional Standards Committee then suspended Plaintiff for one calendar year. (Id. ¶ 23.)

As to La Familia, Plaintiff alleges the Thirty-Seventh Cause of Action for Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract; the Thirty-Eighth Cause of Action for Negligence – Failure to Provide Reasonable Clinical Supervision; the Thirty-Ninth Cause of Action for Promissory Estoppel; and the Fortieth Cause of Action for Negligent Misrepresentation.

La Familia demurs to the four causes of action alleged against it, for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and for uncertainty.

LEGAL STANDARD 25CV114273: SAWHNEY vs SNHU, et al. 07/16/2026 Hearing on Demurrer DEFENDANT LA FAMILIA’S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; filed by La Familia (Defendant) CRS# 406849285503 in Department 20

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of factual allegations in a complaint. (Title Ins. Co. v. Comerica Bank-California (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 800, 807.) A court should not sustain a general demurrer unless the complaint liberally construed fails to state a cause of action on any theory. (Kramer v. Intuit Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 574, 578.) A plaintiff must plead facts as are necessary to acquaint a defendant with the nature, source and extent of her claims to provide defendant with notice of the issues sufficient to enable preparation of a defense. (Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 570.)

On a demurrer, the court accepts the truth of material facts properly pleaded in the operative complaint, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Hacker v. Homeward Residential, Inc. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 270, 276.) Facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be. (Id. at p. 280, citations omitted.)

DISCUSSION

Statute of Limitations

La Familia contends that Plaintiff’s negligence, promissory estoppel, and negligent misrepresentation claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 335.1 and 339.

A defense of the statute of limitations may be asserted by general demurrer only if the complaint shows on its face that the statute bars the action. (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Services (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) “[T]he defect must clearly and affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint; it is not enough that the complaint shows merely that the action may be barred.” (Id. at p. 1316.)

La Familia argues that the TAC alleges acts occurring between August 2022 and January 2023, but Plaintiff did not assert claims against La Familia until the filing of the First Amended Complaint October 6, 2025. La Familia contends that the statute of limitations expired on January 18, 2025, two years after the last alleged act or injury. La Familia further contends that even if Plaintiff’s claims did not expire until April 17, 2023, the claims expired on April 17, 2025, and the failure to name La Familia in this action by that date bars his negligence, promissory estoppel, and negligent misrepresentation claims.

In his Opposition, Plaintiff contends that his claims were tolled by the discovery rule. To rely upon the delayed discovery rule for delayed accrual of a cause of action, where a complaint is time-barred on its face, a plaintiff must specifically plead facts showing (1) the time and manner of discovery and (2) the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence. (NBC Universal Media, LLC v. Superior Court (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1222, 1232.) Plaintiff contends that the earliest date of the accrual of his claims is February 16, 2023, the date of his

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV114273: SAWHNEY vs SNHU, et al. 07/16/2026 Hearing on Demurrer DEFENDANT LA FAMILIA’S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; filed by La Familia (Defendant) CRS# 406849285503 in Department 20 formal suspension, or the latest date of April 17, 2023, when his final appeal was denied. However, Plaintiff fails to explain how the pendency of an appeal through SNHU’s administrative process, which did not involve his claims against La Familia, would impact the accrual of his claims against La Familia.

Plaintiff further argues that the continuing harm doctrine applies here and his claims are timely. Under the continuing violation doctrine, a plaintiff may recover for unlawful acts that occur outside the limitations period if they continued into that period. (Wassmann v. South Orange County Community College District (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 825, 850.) “The continuing violation doctrine requires proof that (1) the defendant’s actions inside and outside the limitations period are sufficiently similar in kind; (2) those actions occurred with sufficient frequency; and (3) those actions have not acquired a degree of permanence. (Id, pp. 850-851, internal citations omitted.)

Plaintiff does not explain how the continuing harm doctrine applies as to the alleged acts of La Familia, nor does Plaintiff cite legal authority to support his contention. “Points must be supported by reasoned argument, authority, and record citations, or may be deemed forfeited.” (Coziahr v. Otay Water Dist. (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 785, 799.)

Plaintiff’s 38th Cause of Action for Negligence – Failure to Provide Reasonable Clinical Supervision, 39th Cause of Action for Promissory Estoppel, 40th Cause of Action for Negligent Misrepresentation appear to be barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff has not established that equitable tolling is applicable such as to render such claims timely.

La Familia’s Demurrer to the 38th Cause of Action for Negligence, 39th Cause of Action for Promissory Estoppel, and 40th Cause of Action for Negligent Misrepresentation is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

As the Court finds that the three foregoing claims are time-barred, the Court does not reach the parties’ other arguments as to whether Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, or if the claims are uncertain.

Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract – Thirty-Seventh Cause of Action

La Familia contends that Plaintiff’s Thirty-Seventh Cause of Action for Breach of Third-Party Beneficiary Contract fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

California law permits third party beneficiaries to enforce the terms of a contract made for their benefit. (Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1021-1022, internal citations omitted; Civil Code § 1559.) The terms of the contract must demonstrate the intent to benefit the third party. (Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1022.) “The contracting parties must have intended to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV114273: SAWHNEY vs SNHU, et al. 07/16/2026 Hearing on Demurrer DEFENDANT LA FAMILIA’S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; filed by La Familia (Defendant) CRS# 406849285503 in Department 20 confer a benefit on the third party.” (Id., internal citations omitted.) While a third party does not need to be named in the contract, the contracting parties must have intended to benefit the third party and such intent appears on the terms of the agreement. (San Diego Housing Com’n v. Industrial Indem. Co. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 669, 685.) A court considers the express provisions of the contract and the relevant circumstances under which the contract was made to determine whether a motivating purpose of the contracting parties was to benefit the third party. (Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC (2019) 6 Cal.5th 817, 829-830.)

The TAC alleges that La Familia and SNHU entered into an affiliation and practicum training agreement, and Plaintiff was an intended third-party beneficiary of that agreement. (TAC ¶¶ 306- 307.) The TAC does not attach a copy of the agreement, nor does it cite any terms that establish that Plaintiff was an intended third-party beneficiary such as to confer Plaintiff with standing to enforce the agreement. Nor does the TAC allege the circumstances in which the agreement was made.

In opposing the demurrer, Plaintiff proffers that he can amend to allege that the affiliation agreement between SNHU and La Familia “governed the terms under which students, including Plaintiff, could participate” in practicum placements and “determined whether Plaintiff could begin placement,” and that SNHU communicated to La Familia that the parties needed the agreement “to memorialize our working relationship.” Taken as true, these facts establish only that Plaintiff was likely to benefit from, and was subject to, an agreement regulating the logistics of student placement.

They do not establish that a motivating purpose of the contracting parties was to confer a benefit on Plaintiff, as distinct from their knowledge that a benefit to students might follow from performance — a showing the third-party beneficiary doctrine requires. (Goonewardene v. ADP, LLC (2019) 6 Cal.5th 817, 830). A benefit that is merely incidental to performance, or that follows from a literal reading of the contract, is insufficient to confer intended-beneficiary status (Souza v. Westlands Water Dist. (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 879, 891 [“[I]t is not enough that the third party would incidentally have benefited from performance.”].)

The proffered communication, which frames the agreement’s purpose as memorializing the contracting institutions’ own working relationship, confirms rather than dispels this deficiency. Because Plaintiff has identified the specific facts and language he would plead, and because those facts establish no more than an incidental benefit, there is no reasonable possibility that further amendment would cure the defect. At this stage in the case, where under review is the Third Amended Complaint, leave to amend is denied.

The TAC fails to allege facts to establish that Plaintiff was an intended third-party beneficiary of a purported agreement between SNHU and La Familia such that Plaintiff may bring a breach of contract claim against La Familia. The demurrer to the 37th Cause of Action is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

CONCLUSION

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV114273: SAWHNEY vs SNHU, et al. 07/16/2026 Hearing on Demurrer DEFENDANT LA FAMILIA’S NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT; filed by La Familia (Defendant) CRS# 406849285503 in Department 20 La Familia’s Demurrer to the 37th, 38th, 39th, and 40th Causes of Action of the Third Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.

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 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.

BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.