Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Elements for breach of contract:
(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:
(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.)
“‘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.)
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.)
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.
BUCKINGHAM HEIGHTS LEASE, LLC, VS BUCKINGHAM HEIGHTS BUSINESS PARK
20STCV32418
Jul 26, 2021
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.
NORTH AMERICAN MACHINERY MOVERS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS SERGIO MALDONADO, ET AL.
22CHCV00110
Nov 15, 2022
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.
BANK OF THE WEST VS GARY G. TOPOLEWSKI, ET AL.
22CHCV00493
Oct 25, 2023
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.
THE IRVINE COMPANY LLC V. JL CAPITAL INVESTMENT, LLC
30-2020-01148892
Jun 22, 2021
Orange County, CA
Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to state a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
HAHN VS. RETAIL PACIFIC INC.
MSC19-00156
Aug 28, 2019
Contra Costa County, CA
("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.
FLATIRON WEST INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATIO VS CITY OF OAKLAND
RG19041029
Jun 14, 2021
Alameda County, CA
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).
THOMAS ALLEN VS ROBERT SOWERS, ET AL.
20CHCV00479
Jun 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
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.
GA TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CITY OF PICO RIVERA, A CALIFORNIA CITY
22NWCV00412
Jun 20, 2023
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.
BELISARIO VS. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS INCORPORATED
37-2014-00038773-CU-MC-CTL
Dec 19, 2016
San Diego County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
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.]
MICHAEL LEVINE, ET AL. VS MONTALBA ARCHITECTS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
19SMCV01966
Jun 02, 2022
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.
TYLER EVANS VS AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
19STCV23201
Jan 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
NELSON OCHOA VS SUPRA NATIONAL EXPRESS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV46620
Sep 02, 2022
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.)
SANDPEBBLE APARTMENTS LLC VS NEVADA CAPITAL INSURANCE COMPANY; B&B PREMIER INSURANCE SOLUTIONS, INC. AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE,
19STCV29373
Jul 13, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
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.
ADAM BABIN VS UNITED STATES LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY
37-2018-00041847-CU-IC-CTL
Feb 21, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Insurance
Intellectual Property
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
EPICENTRX INC VS HIBBARD
37-2020-00032878-CU-BC-CTL
Dec 01, 2023
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.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A SCHOOL DISTRICT, VS SCOTTSDALE INDEMNITY COMPANY, ET AL.
21STCV28642
Apr 15, 2022
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.)
PRIVATE CLUB MARKETING INCORPORATED VS. BASS
30-2016-00832707-CU-BT-CJC
Feb 01, 2017
Orange County, CA
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.
LYDIA LIM VS ADP TOTAL SOURCE INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV32242
Jul 09, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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.
THEO TARPINIAN, ET AL. VS DOUGLAS EMMETT INC., ET AL.
20STCV12200
Sep 29, 2023
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.
JOSHUA SHADPOUR VS BARRINGTON PACIFIC, LLC DBA BARRINGTON PLAZA, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
20SMCV00370
Sep 29, 2023
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.
SHOPPING SERVICE CORPORATION VS FALLAS BORROWER II LLC., A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
22VECV00874
Nov 30, 2023
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.
ZEEBA COMPANY, INC. VS CENTURY AUTO SPORT, ET AL.
22VECV00545
Sep 09, 2022
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.
HOMENETMEN WESTERN REGION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION VS NONPROFITS INSURANCE ALLIANCE OF CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION
22CHCV01332
Oct 25, 2023
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.
CLEAN INITIATIVE LLC VS MERCURY INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC
22STCV25199
May 23, 2023
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.
21NWCVP00308
Jan 11, 2022
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.
PSYCH SUNGLASSES LLC VS GOT SHADES INTERNATIONAL INC ET AL
BC667536
Feb 26, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
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.
BLAKE V. REO 2020 REALTY & INVESTMENTS, INC
30-2019-01058146
Aug 05, 2019
Orange County, CA
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.
MOORE VS. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SO. CALIFORNIA
30-2015-00077061-CU-JR-CJC
Sep 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
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.
15. STANLEY VS WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK
30-2016-00852030-CU-OR-CJC
Mar 30, 2017
Orange County, CA
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.
DAJIEL WIECZOREK VS AMEY DAVIS ET AL
NC060846
Aug 03, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
VIDA LEPOL VS. WELLS FARGO BAN
MSC16-00023
Nov 17, 2016
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
CONEJO VALLEY PLAZA 2 LLC VS. VICTOR W CHU
56-2011-00407232-CU-BC-SIM
Apr 16, 2012
Ventura County, CA
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.
HARVEST LANDSCAPING ENTERPRISES, INC. VS. FLORISTS’ MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. INC.
30-2016-00836370-CU-BC-CJC
Nov 17, 2016
Orange County, CA
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.
Harvest Landscaping Enterprises, Inc. vs. Florists’ Mutual Insurance Co. Inc. 2016-00836370
Nov 17, 2016
Orange County, CA
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.
STEPHANIE AVILA ET AL. VS ANGELA LEE
20CV-03539
Apr 05, 2023
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.
CASTAIC VILLAGE CENTER, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS GYMCHEER USA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
20CHCV00417
Feb 24, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
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.
BEVERLY OB & GYN MEDICAL, INC., ET AL. VS GYOUNG JAE PARK, ET AL.
21STCV13326
Sep 01, 2022
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.
UNITED BRANDS WORLDWIDE, LLC VS D&K WORLDWIDE, LLC, ET AL.
22SMCV00951
Apr 28, 2023
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.
BUCKINGHAM HEIGHTS LEASE, LLC, VS BUCKINGHAM HEIGHTS BUSINESS PARK
20STCV32418
Sep 22, 2021
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.
TALAL ALTAMIMI, ET AL. VS LIEF ORGANICS, LLC
23CHCV02417
Jan 11, 2024
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.
FEI ENTERPRISES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS MASSACHUSETTS BAY INSURANCE COMPANY, A MASSACHUSETTS CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV03238
May 09, 2022
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.
TERENCE STAMP VS. RICHARD LA PLANTE
56-2016-00481112-CU-BC-VTA
Sep 15, 2017
Ventura County, CA
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.
WELDING EVOLUTION, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS SELECTIVE SAN FERNANDO PARTNERS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
22CHCV01523
Feb 26, 2024
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.
LEE VS. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY
MSC16-01800
Jan 06, 2017
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
ADVANCED SEARCH PARTNERS INC VS. JENNIFER BOWLES
56-2013-00439666-CU-CO-VTA
Dec 16, 2014
Ventura County, CA
�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.
WAYNE PILKINGTON VS LANDMARK GLOBAL INC
1466283
May 30, 2014
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
LEE VS. GAUGE CONSULTING, INC.
30-2019-01111515
Sep 17, 2020
Orange County, CA
(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.
STEPAN GUMRIKYAN, ET AL. VS STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
22GDCV00141
Jun 03, 2022
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.
OTAKE VS. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
30-2016-00892455-CU-OR-CJC
Jun 01, 2017
Orange County, CA
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.
GATES, ET AL. V. PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC
30-2017-00943879-CU-BC-CJC
May 25, 2018
Orange County, CA
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.)
YON PARK, LLC VS EVELYN YOUNGEUN CHO, ET AL.
20STCV39376
Apr 19, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
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.
CHAFFEE VS INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE
56-2018-00514807-CL-BC-VTA
Feb 11, 2019
Vincent O'Neill
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.
PAYNE VS. FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE
30-2017-00961455-CU-BC-CJC
Jun 12, 2018
Orange County, CA
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
FLAG & SYMBOL, LLC VS VALUE PRICE, LLC, ET AL.
23STCV14229
Oct 18, 2023
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.
CRANDALL’S PLUMBING VS. KINSALE
30-2020-01145763
Mar 04, 2021
Orange County, CA
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.
SAMUEL SANDERS ET AL VS SUNG I CHUN ET AL
BC605191
Sep 15, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
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.
YOKA VS FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE
RG20083526
Apr 26, 2021
Alameda County, CA
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.
SUTTON VS MISSION WALK CORPORATION
37-2018-00053066-CU-BC-CTL
Jun 12, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
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.
JORGE ALBAN CASTANO VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
19STCV37371
Oct 23, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
NORTH AMERICAN MACHINERY MOVERS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS SERGIO MALDONADO, ET AL.
22CHCV00110
Sep 13, 2022
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.)
DANTE ARMENTO ET AL VS RADIUS GROUP COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE INC ET AL
20CV03672
Dec 28, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
THUNDER STUDIOS, INC. VS CASEY CREATIVE GROUP LTD., ET AL.
20LBCV00540
Jul 20, 2021
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.
DAVIS V. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
30-2019-01116281
Jul 27, 2021
Orange County, CA
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).
CITY PROJECT GALA, LLC VS PLAYBOY INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES
SC125511
Mar 22, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
SUPERSTARZ V. FINE ARTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
CVCV15-501
Oct 22, 2015
Yolo County, CA
, 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.
IMPACT DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC ET AL V. WEST, ELMO M ET
22CV01493
Sep 28, 2022
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.
VANCE VS JAMKE
CVPS2301674
Jan 30, 2024
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.
VANCE VS JAMKE
CVPS2301674
Feb 15, 2024
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.)
GAYK BAGRAMYAN VS GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY
19STCV24949
Jun 14, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Insurance
Intellectual Property
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.
2120 FOOTHILL PROPERTIES, LLC., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS EDWIN KENDRICK, ET AL.
20STCV20587
Jun 01, 2023
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
TOMMY DUNLAP VS MERCURY INSURANCE GROUP COMPANY, ET. AL.
18STCV07039
Dec 31, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Insurance
Intellectual Property
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.
ROBERTO MARIA SOTELO VS PARAMOUNT PARK PLAZA, INC.,, ET AL.
21CMCV00172
Sep 28, 2021
12/14/2022
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).
SUMIKO HERRERA VS. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
VC067026
Aug 08, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Insurance
Intellectual Property
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.
SAMUEL BRENNER VS JEREMY MOLLET, ET AL.
19STCV03719
Jun 10, 2021
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").
BEATRICE VILLAR VS. ROYAL CREDIT INDUSTRIES INC
56-2013-00438465-CU-OR-VTA
Jan 22, 2014
Ventura County, CA
Real Property
other
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.)
22STLC04593
Oct 12, 2022
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.
IVANOV VS TITLE 365 COMPANY
56-2017-00497230-CU-BC-VTA
Jul 19, 2018
Vincent O'Neill
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.
BIVIN V. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION
SCV-261717
Dec 05, 2018
Sonoma County, CA
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.)
ADAMIAN VS THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUPS
37-2018-00008256-CU-BC-CTL
Jul 05, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
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.
GHAZAROS GHAZAROSSIAN, ET AL. VS CALIFORNIA AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
19CHCV00202
Aug 24, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
ALDERETE VS. MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY
30-2018-00986794-CU-IC-CXC
Sep 20, 2018
Orange County, CA
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.)
WM SUNSET & VINE, LLC VS GOSH ENTERPRISES, INC.
22STCV14060
Apr 11, 2023
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.
IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY VS. YOON
30-2015-00802336-CU-PA-CJC
Dec 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
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.
GEORGE KOSTANIAN ET AL VS AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL
BC629702
Dec 05, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
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.
LAWANA DENISE REDMAN VS JEANNIE STEEN, ET AL.
23STCV09776
Sep 06, 2023
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.
IVANOV VS TITLE 365 COMPANY
56-2017-00497230-CU-BC-VTA
May 09, 2018
Vincent O'Neill
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.
GUSTAVO VALDIVIA VS MATTHEW R EDWARDS
22CHCV00021
Jul 03, 2023
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.
PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY VS. RICHARD GREENLEY ET AL
CGC12520094
Jul 23, 2013
San Francisco County, CA
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.
BRENTWOOD HOME VS CHARTWELL STAFFING SERVICES INC
BC691395
Jan 09, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
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.
JIM CORTINEZ DOING BUSINESS AS JC CONSTRCUTION VS ZK BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
19VECV01222
Sep 17, 2020
Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
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.)
KEVIN WEBRE VS. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC
VC065902
Oct 19, 2017
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.
KRISTEN GALVAN, ET AL. VS AQUA BLUE CONSTRUCTION, INC. DBA AQUA BLUE CONSTRUCTION POOLS AND SPAS, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
22CHCV00382
Apr 04, 2023
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.
JONATHAN BAKER, ET AL. VS MAREE, INC., ET AL.
18SMCV00115
Jan 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
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.
23801 SAN FERNANDO ROAD LANDCO, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS 23801 NEWHALL AVENUE, LLA, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
22CHCV00613
Mar 07, 2023
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
TURTLE ROCK CREST MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION, INC. VS. TURTLE ROCK CREST COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
30-2020-01125172
Sep 03, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.)
RIND VS AGAPE SPRINGS MHC LLC
CVPS2105022
Jul 12, 2022
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
SUDHA RAI VS SILICON BEACH TESTING LABS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, ET AL.
22STCV14118
Aug 05, 2022
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.
FNS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS GMB NORTH AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION
20CMCV00263
Jan 14, 2021
12/14/2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
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
HENRI DORSEY VS CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
37-2016-00039332-CU-IC-CTL
Mar 27, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Insurance
Intellectual Property
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.
WARD-SCHURR INC VS PREF CONTRACTORS INSUR CO RISK RETENTION
BC682334
Apr 26, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.