Newell v. Abouelmagd CA4/3
Seeking to recover approximately half a million dollars loaned to Defendant Mohamed Abouelmagd, Plaintiff Debra Newell appeals from a judgment dismissing her second amended complaint after the court sustained defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend. The court concluded her claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. In doing so, the court rejected plaintiff’s assertions that the statutes of limitation had been tolled during defendant’s absence from the state, and that defendant should be estopped from asserting the limitation period as a defense.
Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in two respects. First, she claims the court wrongly concluded that tolling under Code of Civil Procedure section 351 would be unconstitutional under the dormant commerce clause of the United States Constitution.1 (U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 3.; commerce clause.) Second, she claims the court erroneously concluded she did not plead sufficient facts to estop defendant from
Comments on Newell v. Abouelmagd CA4/3