What is defamation?

Useful Rulings on Defamation

Recent Rulings on Defamation

HWANSHIK YOON VS ELLEN EUN YOO, ET AL.

Yoo, CJME and Does 1-10 for: Breach of Oral Contract Intentional Misrepresentation Defamation Quantum Meruit Unjust Enrichment Conspiracy to Defraud On May 23, 2019, E. Yoo’s, S. Yoo’s and CJME’s defaults were entered. A Case Management Conference and Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment are set for August 6, 2020 Discussion Plaintiff’s application for default judgment is DENIED without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HOMAYOUN LARIAN VS EDWARD CZUKER, ET AL.

Fourth Cause of Action: Slander of Title “Slander of title is effected by one who without privilege publishes untrue and disparaging statements with respect to the property of another under such circumstances as would lead a reasonable person to foresee that a prospective purchaser or lessee thereof might abandon his intentions. It is an invasion of the interest in the vendibility of property. . . . Damages usually consist of loss of a prospective purchaser.” (Phillips v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CYNTHIA MARIA RIBAS VS BEAU MONDE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

Ribas (Plaintiff) filed suit against Defendant Beau Monde Association and Sommer Adel Salam (Defendant Rodriguez), alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) libel per se, (4) slander per se, (5) fraud (false promise), (6) negligent misrepresentation, and (7) breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

CYNTHIA MARIA RIBAS VS BEAU MONDE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

Ribas (Plaintiff) filed suit against Defendant Beau Monde Association (Defendant), alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) libel per se, (4) slander per se, (5) fraud (false promise), (6) negligent misrepresentation, and (7) breach of fiduciary duty. On February 20, 2020, Defendant’s special motion to strike Plaintiff’s complaint was granted as to the defamation claims, and denied with respect to the non-defamation claims.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

CR CREATIVE SERVICES INC VS HAROLD BRIONES ET AL

First Cause of Action - Defamation “The elements of a defamation claim are (1) a publication that is (2) false, (3) defamatory, (4) unprivileged, and (5) has a natural tendency to injure or causes special damage.” (Wong v. Jing (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1354, 1369.) To plead a cause of action for slander (oral defamation), one “must set forth either the specific words or the substance of the allegedly defamatory statements.” (Comstock v. Aber (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 931, 948.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

ALEXANDRA FILIPPINI V. JEAN AVRICK

Plaintiff argues that defendant’s special motion to strike must be denied because he can establish a probability of prevailing on his defamation claim. Under Civil Code Section 45, libel is defined as “a false and unprivileged publication by writing . . . . which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation.” See, ZL Technologies, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS INC VS KMC LANDSCAPING SERVICES

The contractor subsequently sued the suppliers for libel, slander, and unfair business practices. The suppliers filed a special motion to strike which the trial court denied. The suppliers appealed. (Brown, supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at 1123-24.) On appeal, the suppliers contended that stop notices are generally subject to the litigation privilege. The appellate court concurred.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

RISCONSIN VS SEA BLUFF CANYON VILLAGE H.O.A.

Nor are the causes of action here purely targeting speech itself, like the defamation claims that were stricken in the MP’s cited cases of Ruiz v. Harbor View Community Assn. and Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club. (Cf. Turner v. Vista Pointe Ridge Homeowners Assn. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 676, 684-5.) This case appears to be about governance decisions primarily.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

RAYMOND VILLAGE, LLC V. HILL RANCH PARTNERSHIP

Although originally applied only to defamation actions, the privilege has been extended to any communication, not just a publication, having ‘some relation’ to a judicial proceeding, and to all torts other than malicious prosecution.” Kashian v. Harriman (2002) 98 Cal. App. 4th 892, 912-913 (internal citations omitted). The recording of a lis pendens is privileged under Civil Code Section 47(b) if it identifies an existing action that affects the title or right of possession of real property. Civ.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

EVAN ISRAEL BRENNER VS MIKA JAYMES INC ET AL

Civil Code section 3425.3 provides as follows: “No person shall have more than one cause of action for damages for libel or slander or invasion of privacy or any other tort founded upon any single publication or exhibition or utterance, such as any one issue of a newspaper or book or magazine or any one presentation to an audience or any one broadcast over radio or television or any one exhibition of a motion picture.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

ANDREW M. EGBE VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) fraud, (2) wrongful foreclosure, (3) quiet title, (4) declaratory relief, (5) slander of title, (6) slander of credit, (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (8) cancellation of instruments, and (9) unfair business practices. The Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows. In August 2005, Plaintiff purchased real property located at 3539 South Cochran Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90016 (Property). (Compl. ¶ 13.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

WELLPARK, INC. VS. TRUONG

(Cross-complaint at Paras. 21, 25, 26, 29 [liability as of February 2016]; CCP 338(a) [liability created by statute – three years]; CCP 340(c) [defamation – one year]; CCP 338(d) [fraud – three years].) The demurrer to the sixth cause of action is sustained in its entirety, with leave to amend. This cause of action fails to allege how cross-defendants misappropriated Truong’s name, likeness or identity. (Maxwell v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

632 N PALM DRIVE, LLC VS ADAN PENA, ET AL.

The Cross-Complaint alleges 12 causes of action for: breach of contract; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; intentional misrepresentation in the alternative, negligent misrepresentation; common count: account stated, open book account, services rendered foreclosure of mechanics’ lien; negligence; defamation per se; comparative equitable indemnity; contribution; total implied indemnity and; declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CITY OF SAN JOSE V. FALCOCCHIA

Constitution; (6) violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1983; (7) invasion of privacy under article I, section I of the California Constitution; (8) Bane Act violations; (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (10) unfair and deceptive business practices; and (11) slander of title. The City subsequently demurred to all of the claims asserted in the Falcocchia’s cross- complaint on the ground of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 43010, subd. (e).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

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

Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 244, 252 [in defamation case requiring clear and convincing proof of actual malice, summary judgment to be granted unless it appears plaintiff may be able to meet that standard at trial].) A prolonged failure to take adequate measures to protect people exposed to a company’s products against a known hazard to their health and safety can justify the conclusion that the company’s conduct was malicious, fraudulent, or oppressive. (See Bankhead v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

STEVEN POWERS VS MARCOS VIVIAN, ET AL.

Sixth Cause of Action: Slander of Title The elements of the tort of slander of title are: “(1) publication, (2) absence of justification, (3) falsity and (4) direct pecuniary loss.” (Truck Ins. Exch. v. Bennett (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 75, 84 (Truck Ins.).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

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

Slander of Title (11th COA) The elements of a cause of action for slander of title are “(1) a publication, (2) which is without privilege or justification, (3) which is false, and (4) which causes direct and immediate pecuniary loss.” (Manhattan Loft, LLC v. Mercury Liquors, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1040, 1051.) Plaintiff failed to allege facts to establish a cause of action for slander of title against Raz Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

LAWRENCE CHIBUEZE, ET AL. VS TELOPS INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL.

The Complaint alleges causes of action for: Fraud by intentional misrepresentation and concealment; Negligent hiring and supervision; Slander of title; Trespass to land; Promissory estoppel; and Unfair competition (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.) Plaintiffs allege causes of action three, four, and six against Ygrene.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DAVID BRONSON VS CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, ET AL.

LIBEL.” Defendants Charter Communications, LLC and Charter Communications, Inc. seek to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement as to which Plaintiff did not opt-out and which encompasses the Complaint’s claims.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

AMBASSADOR REAL ESTATE INC VS KASHAY

If Defendant establishes a prima facie case, then the burden shifts to Plaintiffs to establish a probability that they will prevail on their defamation claim. Defendant has failed to meet her initial burden of proof as to the first prong. Defendant has failed to establish that a proceeding before a homeowner's association is an "official proceeding authorized by law" within the meaning of subdivisions (e)(1) or (e)(2) of CCP § 425.16.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

ABBEY RESTAURANTS AND BARS USA-LA, LLC, ET AL. VS MICHAEL GOSS

Michael Goss, Case No. 20SMCV00846 Hearing Date 7/8/2020 Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Seal the Action and Case File and Set Aside Dismissal Plaintiffs filed this action on June 26, 2020, alleging defamation and trade libel. Plaintiffs’ complaint allegedly “included and disclosed erroneous information and wrongly, and in a faulty manner, confused parties and material witnesses.” Motion at pg. 3.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

BEATA KAMINSKA VS PARAGON SYSTEMS, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed on PLD-PI-001, includes all of the following causes of action: general negligence, intentional tort, assault, civil rights violation, constitutional rights [violation], defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intentional bodily injury and property damage. (see FAC, p. 3.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

FELICIA JACINTA ANARO VS MASON-MCDUFFIE MORTGAGE CORPORATION AND U.S. BANK, N.A. ET AL.

Slander of Title: The judicially noticed material facts establish that U.S. Bank’s and MERS’s actions in recording the several notices of default and notices of trustee sale were privileged under Civil Code section 47 in that the deed of trust and subsequent assignments identified U.S. Bank as the beneficiary of the deed of trust and MERS as its agent.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Judge

    George J. Abdallah

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

RENATO ROBISON VS MARIANAH CREVIOSERAT

By way of background, on February 28, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in this action against Defendant Mariana Crevoiserat (“Mariana”), alleging causes of action for libel per se, slander per se, false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), libel, slander, and invasion of privacy.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

CHICUACE CHICUACE VS MR. JIMMY A. GOMEZ, ET AL.

ANALYSIS: On September 6, 2019, Plaintiff Chicuace Chicuace (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint in this action for slander against Defendants Jimmy A. Gomez and Leonard Mata (“Defendants”). The Summons was issued on December 31, 2019. On March 13, 2019, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint. To date, no opposition has been filed.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 155     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.