Dawadi v. Adhikari

── Dawadi v. Adhikari ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/16/26 Certified for Publication 5/12/26 (order attached) COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BHASKAR DAWADI, D086131 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (Super. Ct. No. 24CU003740C) PRASANNA ADHIKARI et al., Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Catherine A. Richardson, Judge. Affirmed. Daniel J. Winfree for Plaintiff and Appellant. Sterling Law Group, Randall C. Sterling and Justin R. Sterling for Defendants and Respondents. Bhaskar Dawadi appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend on statute of limitations grounds. On our independent review, we conclude that his claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.  I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. The Loan Agreement and Default In January 2015, Dawadi loaned money to Pradhi, Inc.—a corporation controlled by respondent Prasanna Adhikari—under a written agreement requiring repayment within one year at zero percent interest. Adhikari made no payments during the one-year repayment period that ended in January 2016. B. Payments Beginning in June 2021, about five and one-half years after the loan was due, Adhikari made three $1,000 payments. The first two checks noted within the memo section: “BR Dawadi-Pradhi Loan Payment.” The third, made in November 2023, only stated: “Payment.” Adhikari subsequently denied ever having borrowed money from Dawadi. Dawadi also attempted to obtain a personal guarantee from Adhikari, which Adhikari refused. C. Litigation In July 2024, Dawadi filed a complaint alleging two causes of action for breach of contract and one for fraud in the inducement. Respondents demurred on multiple grounds, including the statute of limitations. Dawadi opposed, arguing that the check annotations constituted a written acknowledgment of the debt sufficient to revive it under Western Coal and Mining Co. v. Jones (1946) 27 Cal.2d 819 (Western Coal). The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. The court found the four-year statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 3371 had run by January 2020; that the 2021 payments could not by themselves revive the barred claim under section 360; and that Western Coal 1 All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 2 was distinguishable because it involved a subsequently executed written agreement between the parties, not check annotations. This appeal followed. II. DISCUSSION Dawadi contends the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer because the check annotations constituted a sufficient written acknowledgment of the debt to create a new contract and revive the barred cause of action. We disagree. A. Guiding Principals On appeal from a judgment dismissing an action after sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend, the standard of review is de novo. “ ‘We give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. [Citation.] Further, we treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but do not assume the truth of contentions, deductions, or conclusions of law.’ ” (Best v. Ocwen Loan Services, LLC (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 568, 574.) “ ‘When a demurrer is sustained, we determine whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.’ ” (Ibid.) When it is sustained without leave to amend, “ ‘we decide whether there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment.’ ”