What is civil conspiracy?

Useful Rulings on Civil Conspiracy

Recent Rulings on Civil Conspiracy

ANTHONY SAM VS RENEE KWAN ET AL

.; (6) escrow negligence; (7) fraud; (8) civil conspiracy; and (9) declaratory relief. Plaintiffs allege that Plaintiff Sam and Defendant Kwan entered into a business venture together to create CAC LLC in 2013, where Kwan and Sam appointed Sam as the managing member of CAC, LLC. (FAC, ¶ 4.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KOUROSH IZADPANAHI VS MARIA ALMA YOLANDA IBARRA DABDOUB, ET AL.

Sixth Cause of Action: Civil ConspiracyCivil conspiracy is not an independent tort. Instead, it is a legal doctrine that imposes liability on persons who, although not actually committing a tort themselves, share with the immediate tortfeasors a common plan or design in its perpetration.” (City of Industry v. City of Fillmore (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 191, 211-212, quotation marks omitted.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

ANDREWS V. HESS

Civil Conspiracy (Fourth Cause of Action) “Conspiracy is not a cause of action, but a legal doctrine that imposes liability on persons who, although not actually committing a tort themselves, share with the immediate tortfeasors a common plan or design in its perpetration.” (Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 510-511.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

KRISTIE DOYLE, ET AL. V. IMERYS TALC AMERICA INC., ET AL.

Its separate statement merely refers the reader back to the same UMFs submitted for the misrepresentation and concealment claims, without separate evidence for the elements of civil conspiracy. None of the elements for civil conspiracy are addressed in those UMFs. Further, J&J fails to provide citations for the elements of a civil conspiracy or any meaningful discussion. To the extent its arguments rest on Plaintiffs’ inability to produce or obtain evidence regarding fraud, this argument lacks merit.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

ROSEMARY WOODS VS RAZ INVESTMENTS,INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Liability Based on Civil Conspiracy DLD Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s causes of action against DLD Defendants are based on Plaintiff’s claim of a civil conspiracy, which Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged. (Demurrer, pg. 15.) Plaintiff failed to allege facts suggesting DLD or Rad participated in the formation and/or operation of the purported civil conspiracy.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

MUNOZ VS PL HOTEL GROUP LLC

The motion is granted without leave to amend as to the request to strike the civil conspiracy and alter ego allegations. Insufficient facts have been pled showing the formation and operation of a conspiracy involving Rajesh Patel. See Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1062. Moreover, plaintiffs have failed to allege specific facts showing a unity of interest between Rajesh Patel and PL Hotel Group/Inn Lending or that an inequitable result if corporate separateness were disregarded. See Leek v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MJ GLOBAL ENTERRPISE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS SUSAN HEO, ET AL.

“The elements of a civil conspiracy are the formation and operation of the conspiracy and damage resulting to plaintiff from an act done in furtherance of the common design.” (Ibid. .) As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiffs assert in their opposition that a demurrer to this cause of action by Tower was previously overruled. Plaintiffs are incorrect.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PERFECTED ROSES LLC V. WESTERLAY ORCHIDS LP, ET AL.

A claim for civil conspiracy requires three elements: “(1) the formation and operation of the conspiracy, (2) wrongful conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy, and (3) damages arising from the wrongful conduct.” Kidron v. Movie Acquisition Corp., 40 Cal.App.4th 1571, 1581 (1995). “Mere association does not make a conspiracy. There must be evidence of some participation or interest in the commission of the offense.’ [Citation].” Id. at 1582.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

SOUTHERN COUNTIES OIL CO., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VS JOHN MEZA

SCO has adequately alleged a civil conspiracy. The demurrer to the allegation of civil conspiracy is overruled. e. Trespass to Chattels The elements of trespass to chattels are similar to conversion; the difference is the extent of interference. (Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1566–1567.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PENG CHEN VS CBM INVESTEMENTS INC ET AL

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) conversion; (2) violation of California Penal Code, Section 496; (3) constructive trust; and (4) civil conspiracy. Cross-Complainants CBM Investments, Inc. and CBM Systems, Inc. filed a cross-complaint alleging causes of action against Cross-Defendants Ginny Lin and RBB for: (1) contribution; (2) equitable indemnity; and (3) declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SUSAN HANNAFORD, ET AL. VS SEVEN SATELLITE PTY LTD, ET AL.

Plaintiffs’ opposition neglects to even mention the civil conspiracy and declaratory relief claims against Defendant.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

SUSAN HANNAFORD, ET AL. VS SEVEN SATELLITE PTY LTD, ET AL.

Plaintiffs’ opposition neglects to even mention the civil conspiracy and declaratory relief claims against Defendant.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

PANKAJ MACWAN, ET AL. VS NARENDRA PATEL, ET AL.

Sixth Cause of Action (i.e., Civil Conspiracy) “Civil conspiracy is not an independent tort. Rather, it is ‘”a legal doctrine that imposes liability on persons who, although not actually committing a tort themselves, share with the immediate tortfeasors a common plan or design in its perpetration.” [Citation.]’” (Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Sherwood Partners, Inc. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 802, 823, citing Kidron v. Movie Acquisition Corp. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1571, 1581.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SUSAN HANNAFORD, ET AL. VS SEVEN SATELLITE PTY LTD, ET AL.

Plaintiffs’ opposition neglects to even mention the civil conspiracy and declaratory relief claims against Defendant.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

SUSAN HANNAFORD, ET AL. VS SEVEN SATELLITE PTY LTD, ET AL.

Plaintiffs assert causes of action for (1) fraud – intentional misrepresentation; (2) fraud – concealment; (3) defamation per se (libel); (4) defamation per se (slander); (5) defamation (libel); (6) defamation (slander); (7) false light; (8) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; (9) forgery; (19) violation of the statutory right to publicity; (11) violation of the common law right to publicity; (12) sexual harassment; (13) negligent supervision; (14) civil conspiracy; (15) unjust enrichment

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

SUSAN HANNAFORD, ET AL. VS SEVEN SATELLITE PTY LTD, ET AL.

Plaintiffs assert causes of action for (1) fraud – intentional misrepresentation; (2) fraud – concealment; (3) defamation per se (libel); (4) defamation per se (slander); (5) defamation (libel); (6) defamation (slander); (7) false light; (8) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; (9) forgery; (19) violation of the statutory right to publicity; (11) violation of the common law right to publicity; (12) sexual harassment; (13) negligent supervision; (14) civil conspiracy; (15) unjust enrichment

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

JOSHUA M RODIN VS WESTBOURNE TOWNHOUSES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION, ET AL.

., and (6) civil conspiracy, also seeking the remedy of injunctive relief. The verified Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows. Rodin is the owner of the Property, which is in a common interest development managed by Defendant HOA. HOA is scheming to deprive Rodin of his ownership of the Property.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

TINA CHOI VS PBK AMERICA, A CALIFORNIS CORPORATION, ET AL.

“The elements of an action for civil conspiracy are (1) formation and operation of the conspiracy and (2) damage resulting to the plaintiff (3) from a wrongful act done in furtherance of the common design.” Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal. 4th 1048, 1062. Where fraud is alleged to be the object of the conspiracy, the claim must be pleaded with particularity. Favila v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP (2010) 188 Cal. App. 4th 189, 211.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KC EXCLUSIVE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS SEUNG YONG PAEK, ET AL.

Code § 17200; and (4) Civil Conspiracy. On December 24, 2019, Defendants Paek, PSY Apparel, and Iliad USA, Inc. filed the instant Demurrer to the FAC. The Court considered the moving and opposition papers, and rules as follows. Demurrer Standard: A demurrer tests the sufficiency of the pleading at issue as a matter of law. City of Chula Vista v. County of San Diego (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1713, 1719.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JUANA ROMAN, A INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS BRANDON WONG, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Civil Conspiracy 6. Unfair Business Practices Merits Pursuant to CCP §§ 1987.1 and 2025.480, the court, upon a proper showing, is authorized to compel compliance with the deposition subpoena and order the witness to attend, and answer proper deposition questions and to produce the documents requested in the deposition subpoena. Non-Party Alberto Escobar was allegedly present and was the notary who executed the documents and instruments at issue in this mortgage fraud action. (Cox Decl., ¶ 4.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ZHENG V. ZHENG

(p)(2) [‘[t]he plaintiff . . . shall not rely upon the allegations . . . of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action’].)” “ ‘Bare’ allegations and ‘rank’ conjecture do not suffice for a civil conspiracy. [Citation.]” (Choate v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

SUNSET HILLS CAR WASH INC VS GENERAL BARRICADE LLC

First, the Cross-Complaint does not allege a cause of action for civil conspiracy against Ryan, thus the agent’s immunity rule is not applicable. Second, even if the Cross-Complaint were alleging a cause of action for conspiracy, the Court would permit the cause of action to continue because Ryan had a duty (as addressed above) to refrain from injuring the Cross-Complainants through express misrepresentation. (Favila v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD V. SOON, ET AL.

The Fourth Amended 27 Complaint, filed on May 18, 2020, sets forth the following causes of action: (1) Breach of 28 Contract; (2) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (3) Unfair Business 1 Practices; (4) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; (5) Intentional Interference 2 with Prospective Economic Advantage ; (6) Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic 3 Advantage; (7) Misappropriation of Trade Secrets; (8) Civil Conspiracy; (9) Breach of Duty of 4 Loyalty; and (10)

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

OANH KIM NGUYEN V. LONG THANG NGUYEN

Civil conspiracy is not an independent cause of action, but a legal doctrine that imposes liability on one who, although not committing the tort themselves, share a common plan or design in it perpetration. (Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 510-511.) Standing alone, conspiracy engenders no tort liability and must be activated by an underlying tort. (Id. at 511.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2020

MERIDIAN PACIFIC HOLDINGS, LLC. VS AMERITEK VENTURES, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION, ET AL.

.; (3) breach of contract against Lion Den, LLC; (4) money had and received; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) promissory fraud; (7) civil conspiracy; (8) breach of contract (guaranty); and (9) fraud. On March 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to amend the first amended complaint. No opposition has been filed.

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 40     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.