SOROUR vs PNC BANK, et al.

The SAC omits that allegation and alleges the claims are timely. Defendants again demur, contending the entire SAC is time-barred and that each cause of action independently fails to state sufficient facts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(e).)

LEGAL STANDARD 25CV120102: SOROUR vs PNC BANK, et al. 07/16/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Demurrer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint; filed by Wells Fargo (Defendant) + CRS# 696093435704 in Department 517 A general demurrer tests whether the complaint states any valid claim entitling the plaintiff to relief. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Quelimane Co., Inc. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38-39.) All material facts that have been properly pleaded—but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law—are accepted as true. (Blank v.

Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) In addition to the facts alleged, the court also may consider matters properly subject to judicial notice. (Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1111-1112.) The complaint must be construed liberally by drawing reasonable inferences from the facts pleaded. (Rodas v. Spiegel (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 513, 517.) Where the complaint is defective, the court generally should allow leave to amend with great liberality. (Aubry v.

Tri-City Hospital District (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 970.)

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendants request judicial notice of prior court filings and of attached bank records, including a PNC withdrawal slip, an internal customer-inquiry log, and denial letters from Bank of America (Nov. 15, 2023) and Wells Fargo (Jan. 22, 2024). (RJN, Exs. A-C.) Plaintiff objects that the bank records are hearsay and unauthenticated and cannot establish disputed facts at the pleading stage.

A court may take judicial notice of the existence of court records and documents, but not of the truth of hearsay statements or disputed factual matters asserted within them. (StorMedia, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 449, 457, fn. 9.)

The Request is GRANTED as to the existence and filing of the prior court records, and DENIED as to the truth of the matters asserted within the bank records offered to establish the timing or disposition of Plaintiff’s fraud claims. Those private records cannot establish disputed accrual or discovery facts on demurrer. (Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1375.) Plaintiff’s objections are SUSTAINED to that extent.

DISCUSSION

Statute of Limitations

Defendants argue Plaintiff’s claims are governed and barred by the one-year limitations period set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 340(c). According to Defendants, Plaintiff’s claims accrued when she made the withdrawals between August 11 and 15, 2023, and expired no later than August 15, 2024. Plaintiff counters her claims are governed by the four-year period for an action on a written contract. (Code Civ. Proc., § 337(a).) A statute of limitations defense may be raised by general demurrer only where the defect clearly and affirmatively appears on the face of the complaint; it is not enough that the complaint shows the action may be barred. (E-Fab, Inc. v. Accountants, Inc. Services (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1316.)

Section 340(c) prescribes a one-year period for an action by a depositor against a bank for the payment of a forged or raised check, or a check that bears a forged or unauthorized endorsement.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV120102: SOROUR vs PNC BANK, et al. 07/16/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Demurrer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint; filed by Wells Fargo (Defendant) + CRS# 696093435704 in Department 517 (Code Civ. Proc., § 340, subd. (c).) The applicable period turns “not so much the form of the action as it is the nature of the right sued upon.” (Union Tool Co. v. Farmers etc. Nat. Bk. (1923) 192 Cal. 40, 51.) Section 340(c) is a narrow, special provision that applies only to the special case where the action arises because of payment on a check the plaintiff asserts was forged or raised. (Id. at p. 52.)

In the instant case, the SAC alleges nothing about forged checks. Rather, Plaintiff avers that she signed withdrawal slips and withdrew her own funds, and that Defendants breached their deposit account agreements by failing to investigate her fraud reports, communicate results, and provide provisional credits after she reported the scam. (SAC ¶¶ 10-11, 13.) Given the gravamen of Plaintiff’s claims, the Court finds that a four-year limitations period under section 337(a) is applicable.

Citing People v. Mares (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1007, 1014-1015, Defendants argue that section 340(c) applies to any claim against a bank based on a forged check and that a withdrawal slip is the legal equivalent of a check. However, Mares concerned whether a withdrawal slip could qualify as criminal forgery under Penal Code section 475 and is not germane to whether the limitations period under section 340(c) applies to a civil claim involving a withdrawal slip that is not forged. Accordingly, the demurrer to the entire SAC on statute of limitations grounds is OVERRULED.[1]

First Cause of Action (Breach of Contract)

Defendants contend the breach of contract claim fails because the SAC does not identify the specific contractual provisions breached. “If the action is based on alleged breach of a written contract, the terms must be set out verbatim in the body of the complaint or a copy of the written agreement must be attached and incorporated by reference. [Citation.]” (Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 299, 307.) Alternatively, “ ‘[t]o state a cause of action for breach of contract, it is absolutely essential to plead the terms of the contract either in haec verba [5] or according to legal effect.’ [Citation.]” (Progressive West Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 263, 270, fn. 1.)

The SAC identifies the contracts as the parties’ Deposit Account Agreements and alleges duties to investigate disputes, provide fraud protection and “Zero Liability” coverage, provide provisional credit, and act in good faith. (SAC ¶ 13.) The SAC does not attach any agreements, nor does it quote or paraphrase the relevant terms of the subject agreements; Plaintiff instead contends that she has adequately alleged their “legal effect.” However, the SAC simply avers a list of outcomes she believes the contract should produce. A depositor’s breach claim against a bank that alleges only generalized duties, without specifying the contractual terms breached, is insufficient to withstand demurrer. (Holcomb v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 490, 501.) Moreover, the allegations are alleged in conclusory terms without any delineation between each Defendant.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV120102: SOROUR vs PNC BANK, et al. 07/16/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Demurrer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint; filed by Wells Fargo (Defendant) + CRS# 696093435704 in Department 517 The demurrer to the First Cause of Action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Second Cause of Action (Unfair Competition Law)

The UCL applies to any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice. (Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 180.) “Prevailing plaintiffs are generally limited to injunctive relief and restitution. [Citations.] Plaintiffs may not receive damages ... or attorney fees.” (Cel-Tech, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 179.) A UCL plaintiff is therefore limited to restitution and injunctive relief, and cannot recover damages.

Plaintiff’s claim is premised on each of the three prongs under the UCL. (SAC ¶ 16.) A UCL claim borrowing a violation of law is derivative and stands or falls with the underlying claim. (Becerra v. McClatchy Co. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 913, 951.) Here, Plaintiff’s unlawful prong is predicated on alleged violations of the CLRA. As discussed below, that predicate fails as a matter of law.

More generally, Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s UCL claim fails because the relief she seeks is unavailable. In her opposition, Plaintiff clarifies that she does not seek damages, but seeks restitution and injunctive relief to address Defendants’ “systemic corporate pattern, policy, or practice of summarily denying consumer fraud reports and performing bad-faith, superficial investigations as an intentional corporate cost-saving measure.” (Pl.’s Opp’n at 6.) Neither remedy is available.

UCL restitution is confined to money or property in which the plaintiff has an ownership or vested interest and that the defendant acquired; Plaintiff’s funds were deposited into cryptocurrency kiosks controlled by the scammer, not obtained by Defendants, so there is nothing for Defendants to restore. (Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1149.) Injunctive relief requires ongoing conduct or a threat of recurrence and does not lie for completed wrongs. (Madrid v. Perot Systems Corp. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 440, 465.) The conduct affecting Plaintiff is complete, and there is nothing to enjoin. Because no UCL remedy is available, the claim fails regardless of which prong is invoked, and the defect cannot be cured by amendment.

The demurrer to the Second Cause of Action is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Third Cause of Action (CLRA)

The CLRA proscribes specified practices in a transaction intended to result, or which results, in the sale or lease of goods or services to a consumer. (Fairbanks v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 56, 61.) The provision of money or credit, separate from the sale or lease of a specific good or service, falls outside the Act; the Legislature deliberately omitted “money” and “credit” from the statutory definitions. (Berry v. American Express Publishing, Inc. (2007) 147

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV120102: SOROUR vs PNC BANK, et al. 07/16/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Demurrer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint; filed by Wells Fargo (Defendant) + CRS# 696093435704 in Department 517 Cal.App.4th 224, 227, 230-231.)

Plaintiff contends that Defendants marketed fraud-protection and investigation services under Civil Code section 1770, subdivisions (a)(5) and (a)(7), bringing the banking relationship within the CLRA. The California Supreme Court has rejected that theory. (Fairbanks, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 65.) The fraud-protection and investigation services alleged are ancillary to Plaintiff’s deposit accounts and do not transform those accounts into goods or services within the meaning of the CLRA.

Because the CLRA does not apply as a matter of law, no amendment can cure the defect. The demurrer to the Third Cause of Action is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. (Blank v. Kirwan, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318.)

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ Joint Demurrer to the SAC on statute of limitations grounds is OVERRULED.

The demurrer to the First Cause of Action (breach of contract) is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

The demurrer to the Second Cause of Action (UCL) is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

The demurrer to the Third Cause of Action (CLRA) is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Plaintiff shall file and serve a Third Amended Complaint, if any, within 20 days of service of this order. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(g).) Plaintiff may not include in the Third Amended Complaint any causes of action that are not asserted in the Second Amended Complaint. (See Patrick v. Alacer Corp. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 995, 1015.)

[1] In light of this ruling, the Court need not reach the arguments regarding equitable tolling.

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?

THROUGH ECOURT

Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 p.m. (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV120102: SOROUR vs PNC BANK, et al. 07/16/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Demurrer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint; filed by Wells Fargo (Defendant) + CRS# 696093435704 in Department 517 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 4pm (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing.

BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.

ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENT 517 IS BELOW.

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16181989812

Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 One tap mobile +16692545252,,16181989812# US (San Jose) 16692161590,,16181989812# US +(San Jose)

Dial by your location +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose) +1 669 216 1590 US (San Jose) +1 551 285 1373 US +1 646 828 7666 US (New York) 833 568 8864 US Toll-free Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 Find your local number: https://www.zoomgov.com/u/ad6x1ZH23d

Join by SIP 16181989812@sip.zoomgov.com

Join by H.323 161.199.138.10 (US West) 161.199.136.10 (US East) Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812