Bumb v. Gobin
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:25-cv-04729
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
In Timothy Bumb v. Steven Gobin, Judge Van Keulen granted in part and denied in part Gobin’s motion to dismiss, allowing some claims to proceed.
Timothy Bumb’s claims against Steven Gobin were divided by the court between the initial series of loans and the later Loan Agreement. Claims based solely on the initial loans may be amended after the court found them time-barred, while claims based on the Loan Agreement may proceed.
What happened
Timothy Bumb v. Steven Gobin concerns alleged unpaid loans. Bumb alleges that he lent Gobin money through a series of loans, followed by an oral agreement that consolidated the debt. Bumb brought claims for breach of agreement, money lent, and restitution.
Gobin argued that the claims were barred by the time limit for filing lawsuits and that the later oral agreement was barred by California’s statute of frauds. The court ruled that claims based only on the initial series of loans were time-barred, but that claims based on the later Loan Agreement were not shown to be time-barred or barred by the statute of frauds at this stage.
Judge Susan Van Keulen granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The claims based solely on the initial loans may be amended, while the claims based on the Loan Agreement may proceed. The court set December 12, 2025, as the amendment deadline.
The detailed version
- Bumb v. Gobin · No. 5:25-cv-04729
- Susan Van Keulen
- Nov. 21, 2025
Background
Timothy Bumb alleges that, from April 2008 through August 2019, he made nine interest-free loans to Steven Gobin totaling $577,400. Bumb alleges that the loans were intended to help Gobin start a business in California, but that Gobin used the funds for a different purpose and did not repay them.
Bumb further alleges that the parties later agreed orally to modify the repayment terms and consolidate the loans into a new “Loan Agreement.” In 2022 and 2023, Bumb allegedly forgave $192,400 of the outstanding debt in recognition of services Gobin provided. Bumb alleges that he demanded full repayment in October 2024, made two additional demands, and then filed this action on June 7, 2025.
The complaint asserted claims titled breach of oral agreement, money lent, and unjust enrichment. The court construed the pleading as potentially involving separate breach-of-contract claims based on the initial series of loans and the later Loan Agreement. It treated the money-lent claim as a general claim for repayment of the outstanding amount and the unjust-enrichment claim as a restitution theory pleaded in the alternative to breach of contract.
Legal Standard
Gobin moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). At this stage, the court generally accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true and draws reasonable inferences for the plaintiff. A statute-of-limitations defense may be resolved on a motion to dismiss when the defense is apparent from the complaint and does not depend on disputed facts.
Analysis
Initial Series of Loans
Under California law, an oral-contract claim generally accrues when the alleged breach occurs, and the limitation period for an oral-agreement claim is two years. The same two-year period applies to a money-lent claim based on an oral agreement.
The court held that Bumb was on notice of a breach of the initial loans no later than 2022, when he discovered that Gobin had used the funds for a different purpose. The court concluded that the limitation period for claims based solely on the initial series of loans had therefore expired no later than the end of 2024. Those claims were time-barred, but the court allowed Bumb an opportunity to amend his pleading as to them.
Loan Agreement
The court reached a different conclusion for claims based on the later Loan Agreement. Although the agreement appeared to have been entered by 2022, the complaint did not establish beyond doubt that claims based on it were untimely. The court noted that Bumb might prove that he reasonably believed Gobin was using his best efforts to repay the funds until Bumb demanded repayment in 2024. The court therefore did not dismiss the Loan Agreement claims as time-barred.
The court also declined to dismiss those claims under California’s statute of frauds. The parties did not dispute that the alleged agreement exceeded $100,000. But the court found that the complaint did not establish, at the pleading stage, the statute’s other required elements: that the agreement was not primarily for personal, family, or household purposes and that it was made by someone engaged in the business of lending money. The court denied Gobin’s motion on this ground.
Disposition
Judge Susan Van Keulen ordered that Gobin’s motion to dismiss was granted in part with leave to amend and denied in part. The motion was granted with leave to amend as to claims based solely on the initial series of loans, whether characterized as breach of contract, restitution, or a common count. The motion was denied as to claims based on the Loan Agreement, including breach of contract, money lent, and unjust enrichment or restitution; those claims may proceed.
If Bumb amends the claims based on the initial loans, the court directed him to clarify which claims are based on the initial loans, the Loan Agreement, or both, and to clarify the theory supporting unjust enrichment, including whether restitution is pleaded as an alternative to breach of contract. The amendment deadline was December 12, 2025. The order also stated that Gobin had not yet appeared without a lawyer and needed to do so promptly after the withdrawal of his prior counsel.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.