What is defamation?

Useful Resources for Defamation

Recent Rulings on Defamation

76-100 of 4472 results

FAZIO V. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP.

Plaintiffs Michael Fazio and Kim Fazio filed a 3rd amended complaint against defendant Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. and others asserting causes of action for cancellation of documents, fraud and slander of title related to the foreclosure sale of plaintiff’s real property in 2014.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

BENJAMIN COMIDI, ET AL. VS ETI EL-KISS MIZRAHI, ET AL.

The first amended complaint, filed July 22, 2020, alleges causes of action for: (1) fraud (intentional misrepresentation) against Mizrahi, Schmuel, Conquest, Red Dragon, Platinum, and Jain; (2) negligent misrepresentation against Mizrahi, Schmuel, Conquest, Red Dragon, Platinum, and Jain; (3) false promise against Mizrahi, Schmuel, Conquest, Red Dragon, Platinum, and Jain; (4) breach of fiduciary duty against Mizrahi and Conquest; (5) constructive fraud against Mizrahi and Conquest; (6) slander of title against

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ROYAL HOME HEALTHCARE AGENCY VS NOHO HOME HEALTH CARE ET AL.

The cross-complaint alleges causes of action for slander per se, defamation, negligence, and IIED. RULING: [No Opposition] Plaintiff Royal Healthcare Agency, Inc.’s UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel Defendant Elizabeth Hernandez’ Further responses to Interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant Elizabeth Hernandez is ordered to serve further verified responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One), which are signed by defendant or her legal representative and are verified.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

KOREAN WESTERN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF LOS ANGELES VS JONG SUK CHOI, ET AL.

Finally, there is no evidence suggesting Counsel’s involvement with defending against the defamation cross-complaint in the First Action placed him in a position to learn of Yun’s strategy in pursuing the instant action.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CHONG SEO YUN VS CHRIS H JEONG

On November 12, 2020, Jeong filed a Cross-Complaint (“XC”) alleging ten causes of action: Civil conspiracy Breach of contract Trespass Defamation per se Civil harassment Extortion Intentional infliction of emotional distress Private nuisance Public nuisance Negligence On November 12, 2020, Jeong filed the instant Demurrer and Motion to Strike. On December 1, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an Opposition. On December 3, 2020, Jeong filed a Reply.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

JAMES SHIN VS LAW OFFICE OF MORSE MEHRBAN, A.P.C., ET AL.

Dafamation [sic] Defamation Conspiracy to Defame Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage Fraud Negligent [sic] and Fraud Unjust Enrichment On July 16, 2019, this case was related with Case No. 19STCV03697 (lead case). On September 11, 2019, this Court granted Defendants’ Motion for a Prefiling Order for Vexatious Litigant and to Require Security.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

MORTGAGE EQUITY CONVERSION ASSET TRUST 2011-1 (AKA MORTGAGE EQUITY CONVERSION ASSET TRUST 2011-1, MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES 2011-1) BY U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS CO-TRUSTEE VS ISRAEL GONZALEZ, ET AL.

The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: Quiet Title; Cancellation of Instruments; Slander of Title; and Declaratory Relief. Defendant Ygrene demurs to the first, second, and fourth causes of action. The demurrer is unopposed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court sustains the demurrer with 20 days leave to amend. Standard A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law and raises only questions of law. (Schmidt v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

WILLIAM T. WATERS, JR. VS AT&T SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

Code, § 12900 et seq.) for retaliation, sexual harassment, sexual and racial discrimination, failure to investigate and prevent harassment and retaliation, as well as her common law claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation, are all ‘employment-related disputes’ within the meaning of the above arbitration clause, and therefore clearly are covered disputes subject to the arbitration agreement.”].)

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JAMES SHIN, VS LAW OFFICE OF MORSE MEHRBAN, A.P.C., ET AL.

Dafamation [sic] Defamation Conspiracy to Defame Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage Fraud Negligent [sic] and Fraud Unjust Enrichment On July 16, 2019, this case was related with Case No. 19STCV03697 (lead case). On September 11, 2019, this Court granted Defendants’ Motion for a Prefiling Order for Vexatious Litigant and to Require Security.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

RON A ROSEN JANFAZA VS OMID KHORSHIDI

Civil Code § 43 states, “every person has, subject to the qualifications and restrictions provided by law, the right of protection from bodily restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to his personal relations.” Defendant merely argues this cause of action is sufficient because its wording mirrors the wording in Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. However, the FACC’s allegations allege only that Plaintiff committed assault and batter against Defendant.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

STEVEN ROTH VS RICHARD M BEHFARIN, ET AL.

The tort of defamation “involves (a) a publication that is (b) false, (c) defamatory, and (d) unprivileged, and that (e) has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damage.” Taus v. Loftus¿(2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 720. In defamation cases, “[t]he general rule is that the words constituting an alleged libel must be specifically identified, if not pleaded verbatim, in the complaint.” Gilbert v. Sykes (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 13, 31; ZL Technologies, Inc. v. Does 1-7 (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 603, 616.

  • Hearing

    Dec 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ACOSTA V. VEA

The Causes of Action On September 11, 2020, plaintiffs filed their complaint alleging: Slander based on Edgar’s statement on June 8, 2020 accusing Maribel of pressuring Ernie to sign over the pink slips to three cars; Defamation per se based on same statement as 1st cause of action; Slander based on Edgar’s statement on June 8, 2020 that Sonny placed a bug in Ernie’s and Sophie’s Cell Phones and Home Phone; Defamation per se based on same statement as 3rd cause of action; Slander based on Edgar’s statement

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

JACOB BLALOCK ET AL VS HALT GOLD GROUP LLC ET AL

On December 12, 2018, Patriot and Celano filed the operative Second Amended Cross-Complaint against Blalock, Novak, and Orion (collectively, “Cross-Defendants”), asserting causes of action for (1) misappropriation of trade secrets, (2) breach of contract, and (3) defamation.

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SUNG YOON VS MITCHELL J MAHER, ET AL.

Third Cause of Action for Defamation (Libel) Defamation is the intentional publication of a statement of fact that is false, unprivileged, and has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damage. (Grenier v. Taylor (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 471, 486.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MARC A. LAROCQUE VS. CHRISTINE LAROCQUE FRANZ, ET AL

Slander of title claim “may be prosecuted only by someone with an interest in the property. ‘An action for slander of title is maintainable only by one who possess[es] an estate or interest in the property.’ [Citation]” (Chao Fu, Inc. v. Chen (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 48, 58.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

VICTOR HRAMTSOV VS DANIEL GOLDTHWAIT, ET AL.

The SAC asserts causes of action for: DefamationLibel/Libel Per Se; Public Disclosure of Private Facts; False Light; and Negligence.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2020

MARINO, ET AL. V. NOVO MISSION INC., ET AL.

Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 744, 756 [emotional distress resulting from employer's defamation and harassment]; Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 288 [citing text].) The court finds that Defendants have not shown that this cause of action is barred by the workers compensation exclusivity rule. Furthermore, the court finds that the cause of action is adequately alleged. (See CACI no. 1600; Compl., at ¶¶ 28, 31, 32, 103-108.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

2009 WELLINGTON ROAD, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS MICHELLE HAGUE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Slander of Title: In his third cause of action, Jung seeks damages on the grounds that the recording of the NOD and NOTS has cast doubt on the LLC’s title to the Property. (FAC ¶¶ 40, 45.) Jung is not the Property owner. (FAC ¶ 3.) Therefore, Jung does not have standing to assert this claim. (See CACI 1730 (first element of slander of title claim is that defendant cast doubt upon plaintiff’s ownership of the property).)

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

DONALD F. GAUBE VS. JEFFREY W. JOHNSON, ET AL

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. (Rubin v. Green (1993) 4 Cal,4th 1187, 1193-1194; Edwards v. Centex Real Estate Corp. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 15, 29.) Moreover, “[t]he litigation privilege is not limited to the courtroom, but encompasses actions by administrative bodies and quasi-judicial proceedings.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

SAINT ANDREWS EQUITIES LLC, A CALIFORNIA LLC VS CURRY PARKWAY L.P., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.

Step Two: The elements for a cause of action for slander of title are (1) a publication, which is (2) without privilege or justification, (3) false, and (4) causes pecuniary loss. Manhattan Loft, LLC v. Mercury Liquors, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal. App. 4th 1040, 1051.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

ALLEN JAY HOLLIS VS ALPHA SECURITY AND LOGISTIX, INC.

Defendant argues that the third cause of action in the FAC, for defamation per se, is improper because it is beyond the court’s order granting leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARTIN TOSCANO, JR VS W.A. RASIC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Plaintiff argues that his non-arbitrable claims (for violations of FEHA, violations of CRFA, wrongful termination, defamation, and PAGA) should not be stayed because they are distinct from the Labor Code violations. Nevertheless, Plaintiff offers no analysis or supporting authority that contravenes the mandatory language of Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4. Therefore, the Court will stay the action pending completion of arbitration of Plaintiff’s arbitrable claims.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MR BUILD HOME IMPROVEMENT COMPANY D.B.A. MR BUILD SOLAR ELECTRIC VS CALIN KEELEY

Plaintiff filed its initial Complaint on February 22, 2019, and thereafter filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on May 10, 2019, alleging ten causes of action for (1) Conversion, (2) Breach of Contract, (3) Property Damages, (4) Trespass to Chattel, (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (”IIED”), (6) Slander Per Se, (7) Libel, (8) Fraud, (9) ‘Tenacious’ Interference with Existing Contract, (10) Injunction – TRO.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

GOLDEN J GROUP, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS JIANHUA LI, ET AL.

The Court further finds that cross-complainants in opposition have submitted a sufficient showing to demonstrate a probability that they will prevail on their claims of libel. [Tan Decl., paras. 7-10, Ex. A; Li Decl., paras. 9-12, Ex. A].

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

TIERNAN VS. KALIN

Board of Trustees of California State University, supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at 778 ["As discussed above, the defamatory statements at issue in his retaliation claim are the same as those in his defamation claim, which we have already concluded are protected by the absolute privilege set forth in Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b)(3).

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 179     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.