Wednesday, December 3, 2025
Page 3
Suit Properly Found Timely Based on Applying Sweden’s 25-Year Statute of Limitation—C.A.
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A judge correctly determined that the Kingdom of Sweden’s 25-year statute of limitation in breach-of-contract suits, rather than California’s four-year time bar, applies in an action by the Nordic nation against a woman who failed to repay her student loans, Div. Six of the Court of Appeal for this district has held.
The unpublished opinion, filed Monday, affirms a summary judgment granted by Ventura Superior Court Judge Rebecca Riley in favor of Sweden and against Samantha Ashhadi Soliman, AKA Nazanin Ashhadi. The award was for $84,057.95, the equivalent of 885,005 Swedish Crowns.
Justice Tari L. Cody wrote:
“[T]he court evaluated which jurisdiction’s interest would be more impaired by application of the other jurisdiction’s laws. It found Sweden’s interest in applying its 25-year statute of limitations to student loan collection actions was stronger and more specific than California’s general interest in protecting residents against stale claims. Many Swedish student loan borrowers who move abroad seek to avoid paying their loans and Sweden’s long statute of limitations affords enough time to locate and contact delinquent borrowers residing abroad, work with them to come up with repayment plans, and when necessary, pursue claims against them. On this basis, the court correctly found Sweden’s interest would be more impaired if its policy were subordinated by California’s and properly applied Sweden’s statute of limitations.”
Cody noted that Soliman, a nonattorney who drafted her own briefs on appeal, “includes alleged quotes from cases that do not contain the quoted language” and “incorrectly cites statutes.” She quoted Div. Three of this district’s Court of Appeal as saying on Sept 12 in Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P.:
“Simply stated, no brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court should contain any citations—whether provided by generative AI or any other source—that the attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified.”
She said that Soliman’s “status as a pro per litigant does not entitle her to special consideration,” but nonetheless did not impose sanctions and said that striking the defective briefs or dismissing the appeal would serve no purpose.
The case is Kingdom of Sweden v. Soliman, B339545
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company