Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in California

What Is a Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing?

Elements for breach of contract:

  1. the existence of the contract,
  2. plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance,
  3. defendant's breach, and
  4. the resulting damages to the plaintiff.

(Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.)

Elements for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing:

  1. existence of a contract between plaintiff and defendant;
  2. plaintiff performed his contractual obligations or was excused from performing them;
  3. the conditions requiring defendant’s performance had occurred;
  4. the defendant unfairly interfered with the plaintiff’s right to receive the benefits of the contract; and
  5. the plaintiff was harmed by the defendant’s conduct.

(Merced Irr. Dist. V. County of Mariposa (E.D. Cal. 2013) 941 F.Supp.2d 1237, 1280 discussing California law.) “‘[T]he implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is limited to assuring compliance with the express terms of the contract, and cannot be extended to create obligations not contemplated by the contract.’” (Ragland v. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 182, 206 citing Pasadena Live v. City of Pasadena (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1089, 1094.)

Purpose of the Covenant

“‘The [implied] covenant of good faith and fair dealing … [is] implied by law in every contract....’” (Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1369.) The covenant is read into contracts and functions “‘as a supplement to the express contractual covenants, to prevent a contracting party from engaging in conduct which (while not technically transgressing the express covenants) frustrates the other party’s rights to the benefits of the contract.’” (Racine & Laramie, Ltd. v. Department of Parks & Recreation (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1026, 1031–1032.)

Requirements of the Covenant

The covenant also requires each party to do everything the contract presupposes the party will do to accomplish the agreement’s purposes. (Harm v. Frasher (1960) 181 Cal.App.2d 405, 417.) A breach of the implied covenant of good faith is a breach of the contract (Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1393), and “breach of a specific provision of the contract is not... necessary” to a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (Carma Developers, Inc. v. Marathon Development California, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 342, 373 & fn. 12.)

“[B]reach of a specific provision of the contract is not... necessary” to a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (Carma Developers, supra, 2 Cal.4th at 373 & fn. 12.)

“Every contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing in its performance and its enforcement.” (Hicks v. E.T. Legg & Associates (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 496, 508.) “‘The implied promise [of good faith and fair dealing] requires each contracting party to refrain from doing anything to injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement.” (Avidity Partners, LLC v. State of California (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1204.) “In essence, the covenant is implied as a supplement to the express contractual covenants, to prevent a contracting party from engaging in conduct which (while not technically transgressing the express covenants) frustrates the other party's rights to the benefits of the contract.”

“The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing does not impose substantive terms and conditions beyond those to which the parties actually agreed.”(Id.) “The covenant of good faith and fair dealing, implied by law in every contract, exists merely to prevent one contracting party from unfairly frustrating the other party’s right to receive the benefits of the agreement actually made.” (Id.) “The covenant thus cannot ‘be endowed with an existence independent of its contractual underpinnings.’” (Id.) “It cannot impose substantive duties or limits on the contracting parties beyond those incorporated in the specific terms of their agreement.” (Id.)

Rulings for Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in California

Defendant demurs to the second cause of action, for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Defendant argues that a cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing does not give rise to tort damages absent the existence of a special relationship. Nevertheless, Plaintiff asserts sufficient facts to assert a contractual claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which is implied in every contract.

  • Name

    BUCKINGHAM HEIGHTS LEASE, LLC, VS BUCKINGHAM HEIGHTS BUSINESS PARK

  • Case No.

    20STCV32418

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Breach of Fiduciary Duty 3. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing RULING : The unopposed demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.

  • Name

    NORTH AMERICAN MACHINERY MOVERS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS SERGIO MALDONADO, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22CHCV00110

  • Hearing

    Nov 15, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing As Defendants have dismissed their first cause of action for Malicious Prosecution from their cross-complaint, the sole remaining cause of action alleges against Plaintiff a Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. Every contract contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that neither party will do anything to interfere with the other party's right to receive the benefits of the agreement. ( Howard v.

  • Name

    BANK OF THE WEST VS GARY G. TOPOLEWSKI, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22CHCV00493

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TIC challenges the second cause of action (Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e). The Demurrer states, “The second cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing fails because it is duplicative of iSno Café’s breach of contract claim.

  • Name

    THE IRVINE COMPANY LLC V. JL CAPITAL INVESTMENT, LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2020-01148892

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2021

Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to state a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

  • Name

    HAHN VS. RETAIL PACIFIC INC.

  • Case No.

    MSC19-00156

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2019

("Flatiron") to the Second Amended Cross-Complaint of the City of Oakland ("the City"): The demurrer to the Second Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is OVERRULED. The City alleges that Flatiron breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by repeatedly making unsupported requests for additional compensation to which it was not entitled.

  • Name

    FLATIRON WEST INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATIO VS CITY OF OAKLAND

  • Case No.

    RG19041029

  • Hearing

    Jun 14, 2021

Plaintiff’s claim that the breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing cause of action is based on “a separate impermissible act by Defendant” is without merit. ( See Opp. p.4:22-p.5:1; FAC ¶¶32-33).

  • Name

    THOMAS ALLEN VS ROBERT SOWERS, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20CHCV00479

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

The prerequisite for any action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is the existence of a contractual relationship between the parties, since the covenant is an implied term in the contract. ( Smith v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 225 Cal.App.3d 48-49.) (Emphasis added.) As the alleged actions occurred after the contractual relationship was terminated, there can be no breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

  • Name

    GA TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CITY OF PICO RIVERA, A CALIFORNIA CITY

  • Case No.

    22NWCV00412

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiffs' allegations in support of their 1st cause of action for Fraud and the 2nd cause of action for Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing are the same, or substantially similar, in both the Third Amended Complaint and the SAC. Accordingly, the Court incorporates its analysis from the Court's July 29, 2016 order (ROA # 150) to DENY the Motion as to Plaintiffs' 1st cause of action for Fraud and the 2nd cause of action for Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.

  • Name

    BELISARIO VS. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS INCORPORATED

  • Case No.

    37-2014-00038773-CU-MC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Dec 19, 2016

Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Third Cause of Action The [implied] covenant of good faith and fair dealing [is] implied by law in every contract. [Citation.] The covenant is read into contracts and functions as a supplement to the express contractual covenants, to prevent a contracting party from engaging in conduct which (while not technically transgressing the express covenants) frustrates the other partys rights to the benefits of the contract. [Citation.]

  • Name

    MICHAEL LEVINE, ET AL. VS MONTALBA ARCHITECTS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19SMCV01966

  • Hearing

    Jun 02, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Defendant asserts that since there is no “for cause” provision, there is no basis for asserting that Defendant breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Court finds that Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to state a cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. As noted above, Courts will defer to a plaintiff’s reasonable interpretation of a contract.

  • Name

    TYLER EVANS VS AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    19STCV23201

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2020

Second Cause of Action Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Defendants argue that the First Amended Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.

  • Name

    NELSON OCHOA VS SUPRA NATIONAL EXPRESS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV46620

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (2nd COA) A cause of action for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires the following elements: (1) insurer obligated under policy to first or third party; (2) implied duty; (3) unreasonable breach of that duty; and (4) causation of at least economic damages. (Love v. Fire Insurance Exchange (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1151; Waters v. United Services Auto. Assn. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1063, 1070.)

  • Name

    SANDPEBBLE APARTMENTS LLC VS NEVADA CAPITAL INSURANCE COMPANY; B&B PREMIER INSURANCE SOLUTIONS, INC. AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE,

  • Case No.

    19STCV29373

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

As to the cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiff Babin cannot state this cause of action. A prerequisite to a cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is the existence of a contract. Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1, 36.

  • Name

    ADAM BABIN VS UNITED STATES LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00041847-CU-IC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2019

Plaintiff has not met this burden as to the second cause of action for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing and the UCL claim. The demurrer as to the second cause of action for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing and the UCL claim is sustained without leave to amend. Event ID: 3015134 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: 64 Page: 2

  • Name

    EPICENTRX INC VS HIBBARD

  • Case No.

    37-2020-00032878-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2023

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint alleges six causes of action for (1) breach of contract (duty to defend); (2) breach of contract (duty to indemnify); (3) breach of contract (duty to defend); (4) breach of contract (duty to indemnify); (5) tortious breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (6) tortious breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

  • Name

    LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A SCHOOL DISTRICT, VS SCOTTSDALE INDEMNITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV28642

  • Hearing

    Apr 15, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

As to plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action, “with the exception of bad faith insurance cases, a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing permits a recovery solely in contract.” (Fairchild v. Park (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 919, 927.) Since a party “may not recover in tort for . . . breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,” an “award of punitive damages” is not permitted on such a claim. (Cates, 21 Cal.4th at 61; Spinks, 171 Cal.App.4th at 1054–55.)

  • Name

    PRIVATE CLUB MARKETING INCORPORATED VS. BASS

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00832707-CU-BT-CJC

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2017

The Court finds that Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to state a cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

  • Name

    LYDIA LIM VS ADP TOTAL SOURCE INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV32242

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

Breach of the Covenant of Good faith and Fair Dealing A cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is subject to demurrer if it relies on the same alleged acts and damages as companion claim for breach of contract. E.g., Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371. Tarpinian Barrington argues the claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is duplicative of the breach of contract claim.

  • Name

    THEO TARPINIAN, ET AL. VS DOUGLAS EMMETT INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV12200

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Breach of the Covenant of Good faith and Fair Dealing A cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is subject to demurrer if it relies on the same alleged acts and damages as companion claim for breach of contract. E.g., Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371. Tarpinian Barrington argues the claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is duplicative of the breach of contract claim.

  • Name

    JOSHUA SHADPOUR VS BARRINGTON PACIFIC, LLC DBA BARRINGTON PLAZA, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20SMCV00370

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Cross-Defendant argues Fallas claim for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is no different than their second cause of action for breach of contract.

  • Name

    SHOPPING SERVICE CORPORATION VS FALLAS BORROWER II LLC., A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

  • Case No.

    22VECV00874

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Second Cause of Action for Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing There is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract that neither party will do anything which will injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement. ( See Comunale v. Traders & General Ins. Co.

  • Name

    ZEEBA COMPANY, INC. VS CENTURY AUTO SPORT, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22VECV00545

  • Hearing

    Sep 09, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

On May 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint for Breach of Contract, Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Negligent Misrepresentation, and Declaratory Relief. RULING : Continued to November 20, 2023. Defendant Nonprofits Insurance Alliance of California submits a demurrer to the entire first amended complaint.

  • Name

    HOMENETMEN WESTERN REGION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION VS NONPROFITS INSURANCE ALLIANCE OF CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    22CHCV01332

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The Court finds that these allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action for Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. B. Standing Next, Defendant contends that Plaintiff does not have standing to assert a Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing cause of action against Defendant as the AOB did not confer such a right to Defendant.

  • Name

    CLEAN INITIATIVE LLC VS MERCURY INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC

  • Case No.

    22STCV25199

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Breach of Written Contract 2. Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 3. Specific Performance 1 st 3 rd CAUSES OF ACTION BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT, BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING, and SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE: The cases hold that escrow instructions are a convenience to carry out a contract which generally has preceded their use.

  • Case No.

    21NWCVP00308

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Here, Plaintiff alleges nothing more than a breach of the agreement. As such, Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action for breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The demurrer to the first and seventh causes of action (to the extent that they allege breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing) is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. B.

  • Name

    PSYCH SUNGLASSES LLC VS GOT SHADES INTERNATIONAL INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC667536

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2018

Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 (“The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.”). 7th COA – Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing The covenant of good faith and fair dealing, implied by law in every contract, exists merely to prevent one contracting party from unfairly frustrating the other party’s right to receive the benefits of the agreement actually made.” Guz v.

  • Name

    BLAKE V. REO 2020 REALTY & INVESTMENTS, INC

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01058146

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2019

Defendant Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s motion to stay or sever the 2nd cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is denied. The two claims both will require a determination as to whether defendant breached both the contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing with regard to allegedly “low-balling” plaintiff, paying his “undisputed” claims, etc.

  • Name

    MOORE VS. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SO. CALIFORNIA

  • Case No.

    30-2015-00077061-CU-JR-CJC

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2016

It also appears that punitive damages are available only for the fraud claim, not for any breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A Case Management Conference is also set for today and will go forward. Moving party is ordered to give notice unless notice is waived.

  • Name

    15. STANLEY VS WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00852030-CU-OR-CJC

  • Hearing

    Mar 30, 2017

First, a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in a contract “does not vary or add a new term to the parties’ agreement...” (Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 662, 684) Ms. Davis interprets the rental agreement’s covenant of good faith and fair dealing as one that adds a new term of the rental agreement: that “cross-defendant would not disclose cross-complainants [sic] ‘personal information’ to the public absent legal requirement.” This addition is not allowed. Second, Ms.

  • Name

    DAJIEL WIECZOREK VS AMEY DAVIS ET AL

  • Case No.

    NC060846

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2017

Analysis This Court need not reach the preemption issue because the SAC fails to allege facts sufficient to establish causes of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing or violation of civil code § 2924c. As noted in this Court’s previous order, Plaintiffs must allege facts showing that they performed, substantially performed, or are excused from performance.

  • Name

    VIDA LEPOL VS. WELLS FARGO BAN

  • Case No.

    MSC16-00023

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2016

In its motion to strike the punitive damages allegations, Conejo Valley Plaza correctly argues that this is essentially a contract action, based on a lease, and punitive damages are not recoverable by attempting to characterize the conduct as a tort, in breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

  • Name

    CONEJO VALLEY PLAZA 2 LLC VS. VICTOR W CHU

  • Case No.

    56-2011-00407232-CU-BC-SIM

  • Hearing

    Apr 16, 2012

App. 4th 887, 893-98, held that allegations of a failure to diligently defend workers’ compensation claims, thereby increasing the insured’s premiums, stated a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing but not for breach of contract. In Tricor California, Inc. v. State Compensation Ins. Fund (1994) 30 Cal. App. 4th 230, 238, however, the court allowed claims for both breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and breach of contract to proceed.

  • Name

    HARVEST LANDSCAPING ENTERPRISES, INC. VS. FLORISTS’ MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00836370-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2016

App. 4th 887, 893-98, held that allegations of a failure to diligently defend workers’ compensation claims, thereby increasing the insured’s premiums, stated a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing but not for breach of contract. In Tricor California, Inc. v. State Compensation Ins. Fund (1994) 30 Cal. App. 4th 230, 238, however, the court allowed claims for both breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and breach of contract to proceed.

  • Case No.

    Harvest Landscaping Enterprises, Inc. vs. Florists’ Mutual Insurance Co. Inc. 2016-00836370

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2016

Lee Family Trust, to the Complaint’s Third Cause of Action for Tortious Interference with an Existing Contract, Fourth Cause of Action for Intentioanl Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage, Fifth Cause of Action for Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Tenth Cause of Action for Fiolation of Code of Civil Procedure § 1160, Eleventh Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Twelfth Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

  • Name

    STEPHANIE AVILA ET AL. VS ANGELA LEE

  • Case No.

    20CV-03539

  • Hearing

    Apr 05, 2023

  • County

    Merced County, CA

On 7/16/20, Plaintiff Castaic Village Center, LLC filed this action for breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation, declaratory relief and promissory fraud.

  • Name

    CASTAIC VILLAGE CENTER, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS GYMCHEER USA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20CHCV00417

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

Here, Cross-Complainant demurs to the Second Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. A. Second Cause of Action Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Beverly argues that the First Amended Cross-Complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.

  • Name

    BEVERLY OB & GYN MEDICAL, INC., ET AL. VS GYOUNG JAE PARK, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV13326

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

D&K demurs to causes of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conversion and accounting in the FAC. Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Every contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing in its performance and its enforcement. Hicks v. E.T. Legg & Assoc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 496, 508. [T]he scope of conduct prohibited by the covenant of good faith is circumscribed by the purposes and express terms of the contract. Id. at 509.

  • Name

    UNITED BRANDS WORLDWIDE, LLC VS D&K WORLDWIDE, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22SMCV00951

  • Hearing

    Apr 28, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Buckingham Heights Business Park Case No. 20STCV32418 Order Issuing Stay Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal Plaintiff Buckingham Heights Lease, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Buckingham Heights Business Park (“Defendant”) for beach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and declaratory relief.

  • Name

    BUCKINGHAM HEIGHTS LEASE, LLC, VS BUCKINGHAM HEIGHTS BUSINESS PARK

  • Case No.

    20STCV32418

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Breach of Contract 2. Fraudulent Deceit 3. Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 4. Promissory Fraud 5. Negligence RULING : The demurrer is placed off calendar. On 8/11/23, Plaintiffs Talal Altamini and Manking Essential, Inc.

  • Name

    TALAL ALTAMIMI, ET AL. VS LIEF ORGANICS, LLC

  • Case No.

    23CHCV02417

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CACI No. 325 Implied Covenant; Special Instruction Nos. 1 and 3 Plaintiff proposes giving CACI Instruction No. 325 on the elements of a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as well as special instructions about the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff claims these instructions are applicable even though Plaintiff no longer has a cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

  • Name

    FEI ENTERPRISES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS MASSACHUSETTS BAY INSURANCE COMPANY, A MASSACHUSETTS CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV03238

  • Hearing

    May 09, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The court's tentative ruling is as follows: The Court intends to grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings as to 2nd cause of action for breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing pleaded in the Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend. The 2nd C/A relies on the same facts and same damages as the 1st C/A for breach of contract claim. Unlike Digerati Holdings, LLC v.

  • Name

    TERENCE STAMP VS. RICHARD LA PLANTE

  • Case No.

    56-2016-00481112-CU-BC-VTA

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2017

There are no provisions in the parties lease guaranteeing a certain amount of power supply, yet Plaintiffs Third Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing is entirely premised on the insufficient power supply. (SAC, ¶¶ 66-68.) As discussed above, a cause of action for breach of the implied covenant is limited to compliance with the express terms of the contract.

  • Name

    WELDING EVOLUTION, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS SELECTIVE SAN FERNANDO PARTNERS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22CHCV01523

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for breach of contract. The Demurrer is overruled with respect to the breach of contract cause of action. Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing / Insurance Bad Faith As a threshold issue, Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and insurance bad faith are duplicative. See, e.g., Archdale v. American Int’l Specialty Lines Ins.

  • Name

    LEE VS. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY

  • Case No.

    MSC16-01800

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2017

Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing No authority is provided to establish a requirement that there be a cognizable breach of contract action in order for there to be a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. B&P §17200 - The breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (5th COA) can be the predicate wrong for the §17200 claim.

  • Name

    ADVANCED SEARCH PARTNERS INC VS. JENNIFER BOWLES

  • Case No.

    56-2013-00439666-CU-CO-VTA

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2014

�The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is limited to assuring compliance with the express terms of the contract, and cannot be extended to create obligations not contemplated by the contract.� (Id. at p. 1094.) �A breach of the contract may also constitute a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

  • Name

    WAYNE PILKINGTON VS LANDMARK GLOBAL INC

  • Case No.

    1466283

  • Hearing

    May 30, 2014

The court further finds that the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim is properly alleged. Plaintiff argues that this cause of action is duplicative and superfluous.

  • Name

    LEE VS. GAUGE CONSULTING, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01111515

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

(2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 626, 633 [discussing breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing], 637 [discussing bad faith].) The law implies in every contract, including insurance policies, a covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The implied promise requires each contracting party to refrain from doing anything to injure the right of the other to receive the agreement's benefits.

  • Name

    STEPAN GUMRIKYAN, ET AL. VS STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    22GDCV00141

  • Hearing

    Jun 03, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TENATIVE RULING ON MOTION #1: The general demurrer of defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., to the first and second causes of action for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the first amended complaint of plaintiff Stanley Otake is overruled.

  • Name

    OTAKE VS. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00892455-CU-OR-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2017

In Opposition, Plaintiffs argue that a since they maintain a contractual relationship with PennyMac, “PennyMac must abide by the implied-in-law covenant of good faith and fair dealing. PennyMac cannot frustrate Plaintiffs' right to receive benefits of the agreement.” But the fourth cause of action is for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, not the second cause of action.

  • Name

    GATES, ET AL. V. PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00943879-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    May 25, 2018

Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (2 nd COA) Every contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing in its performance and its enforcement.” ( Hicks v. E.T. Legg & Associates (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 496, 508.) “[T]he scope of conduct prohibited by the covenant of good faith is circumscribed by the purposes and express terms of the contract.” ( Id. at 509.)

  • Name

    YON PARK, LLC VS EVELYN YOUNGEUN CHO, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV39376

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

TENTATIVE RULING FOR February 11, 2019 ON DEFENDANT INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB'S DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE The court sustains Defendant Interinsurance Exchange's demurrer to cause of action 2 (breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing). The law allows the Defendant to seek reimbursement for med pay payments made to Plaintiff after taking into account a pro rata share of the attorney fees that Plaintiff incurred in seeking recovery from the third party tortfeasor.

  • Name

    CHAFFEE VS INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE

  • Case No.

    56-2018-00514807-CL-BC-VTA

  • Hearing

    Feb 11, 2019

  • Judge

    Vincent O'Neill

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

(1) Demurrer to First Amended Complaint (FAC) (2) Motion to Strike Tentative Ruling: (1) Defendants Response Team 1 Holdings, LLC and JFS Construction Group, LLC’s Demurrer to the 10th COA (Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) in the FAC is OVERRULED, with 10-days to Answer. For pleading purposes, Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts to support a breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim and contractual damages.

  • Name

    PAYNE VS. FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00961455-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2018

Second Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing The elements for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing are: (1) existence of a contract between plaintiff and defendant; (2) plaintiff performed his contractual obligations or was excused from performing them; (3) the conditions requiring defendants performance had occurred; (4) the defendant unfairly interfered with the plaintiffs right to receive the benefits of the contract; and (5) the plaintiff

  • Name

    FLAG & SYMBOL, LLC VS VALUE PRICE, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV14229

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

As to KIC’s demurrer to the Second COA (Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) and Third COA (Negligence), the Court OVERRULES the demurrer to the Second COA, and SUSTAINS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND the demurrer to the Third COA. Defendant KIC’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.

  • Name

    CRANDALL’S PLUMBING VS. KINSALE

  • Case No.

    30-2020-01145763

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2021

The elements of a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing include: (1) existence of contractual relationship; (2) implied duty; (3) breach; and (4) causation of damages. (See Smith v. San Francisco (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 38, 49; 1 Witkin Sum. Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Contracts § 800; Guz v. Bechtel Nat.

  • Name

    SAMUEL SANDERS ET AL VS SUNG I CHUN ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC605191

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2017

Assn. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1063, involved a claim for tortious bad faith breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, not breach of contract. (Id. at 1070.) As the First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract is currently pled in Plaintiff's Complaint, it appears to be entirely duplicative of Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing and therefore superfluous. The Court will prepare the order.

  • Name

    YOKA VS FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE

  • Case No.

    RG20083526

  • Hearing

    Apr 26, 2021

The general Demurrer (ROA # 31) of Defendant Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company ("Defendant" or "Garrison") to the Fourth Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") Plaintiff Christopher Brian Sutton ("Plaintiff"), is SUSTAINED. Plaintiff is permitted leave to file and serve a Second Amended Complaint within twenty (20) days of this hearing.

  • Name

    SUTTON VS MISSION WALK CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00053066-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2019

This breach caused Plaintiff to suffer a loss of earnings, bonuses, medical costs, and other employment benefits in the total amount of $158,247. Discussion The County moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the entire Complaint. The County argues that Plaintiff’s sole cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is insufficiently plead. The Court agrees.

  • Name

    JORGE ALBAN CASTANO VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

  • Case No.

    19STCV37371

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

Breach of Fiduciary Duty 3. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing RULING : The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend. On 2/17/22, Plaintiff North American Machinery Movers, Inc. filed this action against Defendants Sergio Maldonado and On the Road Insurance Services for: (1) Professional Negligence, (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty and (3) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.

  • Name

    NORTH AMERICAN MACHINERY MOVERS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS SERGIO MALDONADO, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22CHCV00110

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The remaining demurrer of Radius is on the ground that the fourth cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is merely duplicative of the third cause of action for breach of contract. “Breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is nothing more than a cause of action for breach of contract.” (Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1306, 1344.)

  • Name

    DANTE ARMENTO ET AL VS RADIUS GROUP COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    20CV03672

  • Hearing

    Dec 28, 2021

Defendant’s complaint is sufficient, at the pleading stage, to state a claim for breach of contract. The demurrer is therefore overruled. Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Defendant’s second cause of action is for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

  • Name

    THUNDER STUDIOS, INC. VS CASEY CREATIVE GROUP LTD., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20LBCV00540

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Defendant challenges the cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivision (e). (Demurrer; 4:1-8.) McCoy v. Progressive West Ins. Co. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 785, 792–793 (McCoy), “ ‘The law implies a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every insurance contract. (Citation.) Therefore, when an insurer unreasonably and in bad faith withholds payment on a claim of its insured, it is subject to liability in tort.

  • Name

    DAVIS V. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01116281

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2021

The Demurrer filed by Defendants Playboy International Enterprises, Inc. and Mansion Holdings, LLC to the Second Amended Complaint is overruled as to the 2nd Cause of Action (Breach of Contract) and the 3rd Cause of Action (Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) and is sustained without leave to amend as to the 1st Cause of Action (Declaratory Relief), the 4th Cause of Action (Negligent Hiring or Supervision) and the 5th Cause of Action (Misrepresentation).

  • Name

    CITY PROJECT GALA, LLC VS PLAYBOY INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES

  • Case No.

    SC125511

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2017

Defendant AMHIC’s demurrer to the first cause of action for breach of contract and the second cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is OVERRULED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to establish the making of agreement between plaintiff and AMHIC. (FAC, ¶¶ 7, 11, & 12.)

  • Name

    SUPERSTARZ V. FINE ARTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

  • Case No.

    CVCV15-501

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2015

, Specific Performance, Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage are sufficiently certain to withstand demurrer.

  • Name

    IMPACT DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC ET AL V. WEST, ELMO M ET

  • Case No.

    22CV01493

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2022

  • County

    Butte County, CA

The only remaining argument by Title Resources and Equity Title is that any breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing asserted in this cause of action fails. They argue that a claim for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing would be dependent on Plaintiffs asserting a valid breach of contract cause of action. They assert that since Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege such a claim, a claim for breach of covenant fails too.

  • Name

    VANCE VS JAMKE

  • Case No.

    CVPS2301674

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2024

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

The only remaining argument by Title Resources and Equity Title is that any breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing asserted in this cause of action fails. They argue that a claim for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing would be dependent on Plaintiffs asserting a valid breach of contract cause of action. They assert that since Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege such a claim, a claim for breach of covenant fails too.

  • Name

    VANCE VS JAMKE

  • Case No.

    CVPS2301674

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2024

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

Now, Defendant moves for summary adjudication of the second cause of action (breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing) and the related claim for punitive damages. Defendant does not seek summary adjudication of the claim for breach of contract. The law implies in every contract, including insurance policies, a covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (Wilson v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 713, 820.)

  • Name

    GAYK BAGRAMYAN VS GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    19STCV24949

  • Hearing

    Jun 14, 2021

Accordingly, the Court finds that Kendrick has successfully alleged a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and Foothills Demurrer to the Second Cause of Action is OVERRULED. C.

  • Name

    2120 FOOTHILL PROPERTIES, LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS EDWIN KENDRICK, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV20587

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Moving Defendant moves for an order that the following issues are without controversy and that there exists no triable issue of material fact as to the following issues: (1) there is no merit to Plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing because no triable issue of material fact exists upon which a finding of a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing could be based; and (2) there is no merit to Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages because there

  • Name

    TOMMY DUNLAP VS MERCURY INSURANCE GROUP COMPANY, ET. AL.

  • Case No.

    18STCV07039

  • Hearing

    Dec 31, 2019

Plaintiff alleges claims for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) and negligent misrepresentation. // 2. Demurrer by All Defendants filed on 8/25/21 a. First and second causes of action for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

  • Name

    ROBERTO MARIA SOTELO VS PARAMOUNT PARK PLAZA, INC.,, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21CMCV00172

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2021

  • Judge

    12/14/2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiffs’ FAC asserts the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Contractual Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) Tortious Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (4) Bad Faith; and (5) Unfair Trade Practices. Defendants INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB (“Exchange”) demurs to Plaintiffs’ second, third, fourth, and fifth causes of action pursuant to CCP §430.10(e).

  • Name

    SUMIKO HERRERA VS. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

  • Case No.

    VC067026

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2019

11) constructive trust, and (12) breach of duty of loyalty as to Brenner. [1] Brenner seeks to amend the FAC so as to add causes of action for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

  • Name

    SAMUEL BRENNER VS JEREMY MOLLET, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV03719

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing - - Plaintiff has not alleged what contract existed between the parties such that Bank of America could be liable for breach of the covenant thereof. Innovative Business Partnerships, Inc. v. Inland Counties Regional Center, Inc. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 623, 631 ("A cause of action for tortuous breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires the existence and breach of an enforceable contract").

  • Name

    BEATRICE VILLAR VS. ROYAL CREDIT INDUSTRIES INC

  • Case No.

    56-2013-00438465-CU-OR-VTA

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2014

Discussion Allegations in the Complaint The First Amended Complaint alleges causes of action against Defendants for: (1) breach of contract; and (2) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Defendant Palcrete is alleged to be a licensed contractor; Defendant Dawud is alleged to be a licensed realtor for RE/MAX ONE. (FAC, ¶¶2-3.)

  • Case No.

    22STLC04593

  • Hearing

    Oct 12, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Second cause of action (breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing): SUSTAIN with leave to amend. Plaintiff alleges that Westcor breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing "by failing to discover the flow map designation, known as a Blue Line Stream Channel and providing coverage for said mapped flow line, despite the fact that said flow line encumbered the property resulting in coverage under the Title Insurance Policy..." (SAC, ¶ 28). This is unintelligible.

  • Name

    IVANOV VS TITLE 365 COMPANY

  • Case No.

    56-2017-00497230-CU-BC-VTA

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2018

  • Judge

    Vincent O'Neill

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

“Because the essence of the tort of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is focused on the prompt payment of benefits due under the insurance policy, there is no cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing when no benefits are due.” (Id. at p. 279.) The court finds plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Here, plaintiffs allege the policy limits were insufficient to cover their losses.

  • Name

    BIVIN V. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION

  • Case No.

    SCV-261717

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2018

The demurrer to the second cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is sustained without leave to amend. The "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is limited to assuring compliance with the express terms of the contract, and cannot be extended to create obligations not contemplated by the contract." (Pasadena Live, LLC v. City of Pasadena (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1089, 1094.)

  • Name

    ADAMIAN VS THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUPS

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00008256-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jul 05, 2018

Based on the foregoing, an unreasonable withholding of policy benefits under the policy did not occur and Defendant is entitled to judgment on the 2nd cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Given that Plaintiffs’ breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing/bad faith cause of action fails, there is no basis for Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages.

  • Name

    GHAZAROS GHAZAROSSIAN, ET AL. VS CALIFORNIA AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    19CHCV00202

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2020

The demurrer to the 1st and 2nd causes of action for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing are sustained as to defendant Mercury. Plaintiff does allege in paragraph 8 that CAIC is “a subsidiary of Mercury Insurance Company” but that is not enough to confer liability on Mercury for the alleged breach by CAIC of the insurance contract.

  • Name

    ALDERETE VS. MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY

  • Case No.

    30-2018-00986794-CU-IC-CXC

  • Hearing

    Sep 20, 2018

Only when the parties are under a contractual compulsion to negotiate does the covenant of good faith and fair dealing attach, as it does in every contract. ( Copeland v. Baskin Robbins U.S.A. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1251, 1260.)

  • Name

    WM SUNSET & VINE, LLC VS GOSH ENTERPRISES, INC.

  • Case No.

    22STCV14060

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

IDS seeks summary adjudication on the issue that “Cross-complainant George Yu cannot establish as a matter of law his claim for punitive damages because there was no breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and IDS at all times acted reasonable.” (Pl.’s Notice and Motion, p. 2.) Because of the way IDS framed Issue No. 3, IDS does not meet its initial burden to produce evidence showing that there was no breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

  • Name

    IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY VS. YOON

  • Case No.

    30-2015-00802336-CU-PA-CJC

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2016

ANALYSIS: Defendant moves for summary adjudication of Plaintiff Kostanian’s sole cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing The elements of a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing include: (1) existence of contractual relationship; (2) implied duty; (3) breach; and (4) causation of damages. (See Smith v. San Francisco (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 38, 49; 1 Witkin Sum. Cal.

  • Name

    GEORGE KOSTANIAN ET AL VS AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC629702

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2017

The covenant of good faith and fair dealing . . . exists . . . to prevent one contracting party from unfairly frustrating the other partys right to receive the benefits of the agreement actually made. ( Guz v. Bechtel National Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 349.) Defendants demur to the cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to allege a deliberate act to frustrate the purpose of the contract.

  • Name

    LAWANA DENISE REDMAN VS JEANNIE STEEN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV09776

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The covenant of good faith and fair dealing does not impose substantive duties beyond those incorporated in the specific terms of the agreement. Since plaintiff's claim is excluded under the agreement, Westcor did not breach this covenant.

  • Name

    IVANOV VS TITLE 365 COMPANY

  • Case No.

    56-2017-00497230-CU-BC-VTA

  • Hearing

    May 09, 2018

  • Judge

    Vincent O'Neill

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

On June 10, 2022, Glas Tavo, LLC [1] and Gustavo Valdivia filed an unverified first amended complaint for Breach of Contract, Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Negligence, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Declaratory Relief. On October 6, 2022, the court sustained the demurrer to the first amended complaint with 45 days leave to amend.

  • Name

    GUSTAVO VALDIVIA VS MATTHEW R EDWARDS

  • Case No.

    22CHCV00021

  • Hearing

    Jul 03, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Notice Of Motion And Motion For Leave To File First Amended X-Cpomplaint For Express Indemnity; Implied Indemnity; Dclaration Relief; Breach Of Contract; And Breach Of Implied Covenant Of Good Faith And Fair Dealing; Matter on Calendar for Tuesday, July 23, 2013, Line 9, CROSS COMPLAINANT JOHANNES HUWYLER's Motion For Leave To File First Amended Cross Complaint For Express Indemnity; Implied Indemnity; Declaration Relief; Breach Of Contract; And Breach Of Implied Covenant Of Good Faith And Fair Dealing.

  • Name

    PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY VS. RICHARD GREENLEY ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC12520094

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2013

The First Amended Cross-Complaint was filed on June 5, 2018 and Brentwood again demurred to the cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On October 31, 2018, the Court issued an order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend.

  • Name

    BRENTWOOD HOME VS CHARTWELL STAFFING SERVICES INC

  • Case No.

    BC691395

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2019

Pierskalla Defendants contend a cause of action for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is based on the principle that every "contract contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing providing that no party to the contract that would deprive another party to the benefits of the contact. [Citations.] The implied covenant protects the reasonable expectations of the contracting parties based on their reasonable expectations." (Miller v. Zurich American Ins.

  • Name

    JIM CORTINEZ DOING BUSINESS AS JC CONSTRCUTION VS ZK BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19VECV01222

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

Second Cause of Action – Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing There is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract that neither party will do anything which will injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement.” (Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390, 400.)

  • Name

    KEVIN WEBRE VS. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC

  • Case No.

    VC065902

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

On May 27, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a complaint for Breach of Contract, Negligence, Negligence Per Se, Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of Express Warranty, and Recovery on Contracts License Bond. On December 8, 2022, Aqua Blue Construction, Inc., and Britton Julien filed a cross-complaint against the Galvans for Breach of Written Contract, Defamation, and Fraud and Deceit.

  • Name

    KRISTEN GALVAN, ET AL. VS AQUA BLUE CONSTRUCTION, INC. DBA AQUA BLUE CONSTRUCTION POOLS AND SPAS, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22CHCV00382

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The 6 th cause of action for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot support a claim for punitive damages. Punitive damages may only be recovered for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in cases of bad faith breach of an insurance agreement. See 1 Witkin (11 th ed. 2020) Summary , Contracts, §902.

  • Name

    JONATHAN BAKER, ET AL. VS MAREE, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18SMCV00115

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

Proc., § 1060.) 2 nd Cause of Action: Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Cross-Defendant challenges the breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cause of action on grounds that no contractual obligation for a lease extension exists in the pled cross-complaint or terms of the lease.

  • Name

    23801 SAN FERNANDO ROAD LANDCO, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS 23801 NEWHALL AVENUE, LLA, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22CHCV00613

  • Hearing

    Mar 07, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

For the reasons stated above with respect to the negligence cause of action, the sustains the demurrer to the fifth cause of action. 6th cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (master CC&Rs) and 7th cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (CC&Rs) In order to properly establish breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs must prove the following: (1) the parties entered into a contract; (2) plaintiff did

  • Name

    TURTLE ROCK CREST MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION, INC. VS. TURTLE ROCK CREST COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

  • Case No.

    30-2020-01125172

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

COA No. 3 (Breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing) - Under California law, every contract includes an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the performance and enforcement of the contract. (Acree v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 385, 393.)

  • Name

    RIND VS AGAPE SPRINGS MHC LLC

  • Case No.

    CVPS2105022

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2022

  • County

    Riverside County, CA

Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Second Cause of Action To assert a cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the allegations must must show that the conduct of the defendant, whether or not it also constitutes a breach of a consensual contract term, demonstrates a failure or refusal to discharge contractual responsibilities, prompted not by an honest mistake, bad judgment or negligence but rather by a conscious and deliberate act, which

  • Name

    SUDHA RAI VS SILICON BEACH TESTING LABS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV14118

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Second Cause of Action: Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Defendant asserts this cause of action fails because this cause of action merely mirrors the first cause of action for breach of contract. “A ‘breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing involves something beyond breach of the contractual duty itself’ and it has been held that ‘[b]ad faith implies unfair dealing rather than mistaken judgment . . . .’” ( Careau & Co. v.

  • Name

    FNS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS GMB NORTH AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    20CMCV00263

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Judge

    12/14/2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

The Demurrer (ROA # 15) of Defendant CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY ("Defendant" or "Chicago") to the Complaint for (1) Breach of Contract and (2) Beach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing of Plaintiff HENRI DORSEY ("Plaintiff" or "Dorsey"), on the grounds that Dorsey's Complaint fails to state facts constituting the First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract and the Second Cause of Action for Beach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, and is uncertain for failure to

  • Name

    HENRI DORSEY VS CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00039332-CU-IC-CTL

  • Hearing

    Mar 27, 2017

Plaintiff filed the instant suit on November 6, 2017, asserting causes of action for (1) declaratory relief; (2) breach of contract; (3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (4) unfair business practices. Defendant now demurs to the third cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing on the grounds that it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

  • Name

    WARD-SCHURR INC VS PREF CONTRACTORS INSUR CO RISK RETENTION

  • Case No.

    BC682334

  • Hearing

    Apr 26, 2018

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope