What is fraud?

Useful Rulings on Fraud

Recent Rulings on Fraud

1-25 of 10000 results

JOSE AGUILERA VS 5 STAR DELIVERY INC

On August 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants 5 Star Delivery, Inc. (“5 Star Delivery”), Zaragoza, LAH, Rosalba Patricia Hinojosa (“RPH”) and Does 1-40 for: Breach of Written Contract Money Lent Fraud Declaratory Relief and Injunctive Relief On October 26, 2018, Zaragoza’s, LAH’s, 5 Star Delivery’s and RPH’s defaults were entered. A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment are set for September 24, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

YESLENDER, LLC, A PENNSYLVANIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS FIVE BULLS TRANSPORT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

On March 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Five Bulls, Anacleto and Does 1-5 for: Breach of Written Agreement Breach of Written Guaranty Money Had and Received Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Common Count Fraud Constructive Trust Unfair Business Practices Failure to Compensate for All Hours Worked in Violation of Labor Code § 1198 On July 6, 2020, Five Bulls’ and Anacleto’s defaults were entered.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

HWANSHIK YOON VS ELLEN EUN YOO, ET AL.

Yoo also informed employees of Mugs that the police was looking for Plaintiff because “he was a fraud.” On January 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants E. Yoo, S. 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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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

CHING FU CHANG, ET AL. VS PAN MING LEI, ET AL.

On August 8, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants and Does 1-20 for: Breach of Contract Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Common Count Fraud Constructive Trust Unfair Business Practices Failure to Compensate for All Hours Worked in Violation of Labor Code § 1198 On October 3, 2019, Wu’s, Pan’s, ZHDI’s, Trend’s and Z&SHDI’s defaults were entered.

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HOMAYOUN LARIAN VS EDWARD CZUKER, ET AL.

The facts constituting the alleged fraud must be alleged factually and specifically as to every element of fraud, as the policy of “liberal construction” of the pleadings will not ordinarily be invoked. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.) Plaintiff Homayoun Larian (“Plaintiff”) alleges in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) that Defendant Edward Czuker (“Mr.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MED CAFE CORP, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS MOSTAFA KARIMBEIK, ET AL.

The facts constituting the alleged fraud must be alleged factually and specifically as to every element of fraud, as the policy of “liberal construction” of the pleadings will not ordinarily be invoked. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.) To properly allege fraud against a corporation, the plaintiffs must plead the names of the persons allegedly making the false representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ANNE SHOYKHET, ET AL. VS NATHALIE DUBOIS, ET AL.

The facts constituting the alleged fraud must be alleged factually and specifically as to every element of fraud, as the policy of “liberal construction” of the pleadings will not ordinarily be invoked. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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

The facts constituting the alleged fraud must be alleged factually and specifically as to every element of fraud, as the policy of “liberal construction” of the pleadings will not ordinarily be invoked. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant wrote an email to Plaintiff that he was authorized to cancel the agreement, but Defendant failed to state that before the property owner’s death, the owner had assigned the property to the trust. (Compl. ¶ 41.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

NINA MARIE JOHNSON VS IAN PATTON, ET AL.

Fraud” is an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known by defendant, with intent to deprive a person of property, rights or otherwise cause injury. (Ibid.) Conclusory allegations, devoid of any factual assertions, are insufficient to support a conclusion that parties acted with oppression, fraud or malice. (Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1042.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JOHNATHAN MOLTONI, ET AL. VS XTREME MOTOR SPORTS, INC., ET AL.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Defendants and Does 1-20 for: Breach of Contract Fraudulent Misrepresentation Negligent Misrepresentation Fraud—Concealment Violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200 Conversion Unjust Enrichment Conspiracy Money Had and Received Negligence On June 24, 2019, Defendants’ defaults were entered. On October 24, 2019, Plaintiffs dismissed Xtreme, without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LUIS ALONSO VS ROUNDTREE N VAN NUYS, LLC DBA NISSAN OF VAN NUYS, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Plaintiff’s evidence further lacks sufficient specific facts to prove up the elements for punitive damages: malice, oppression, or fraud. There are also no facts to prove up punitive damages against a corporate employer: authorization or ratification of an employee's wrongful acts; or knowledge in advance that an employee was likely to commit such acts, and employed him or her with conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others; or was itself guilty of oppression, fraud or malice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Evidence of profit and financial condition shall be admissible only as to the defendant or defendants found to be liable to the plaintiff and to be guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud. Evidence of profit and financial condition shall be presented to the same trier of fact that found for the plaintiff and found one or more defendants guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud.” (Civil Code § 3295(d).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2020

CYNTHIA MARIA RIBAS VS BEAU MONDE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

Defendants argues that these allegations are insufficient to state a cause of action for either fraud or negligent misrepresentation because Plaintiff has failed to allege damages, and because: Typically, a fraud is undertaken to dupe someone into parting with property or money. In other words, typically there is some motive explained for the perpetration of the fraud. The allegation of a fraud here, however, makes little sense.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

CYNTHIA MARIA RIBAS VS BEAU MONDE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

Defendants argues that these allegations are insufficient to state a cause of action for either fraud or negligent misrepresentation because Plaintiff has failed to allege damages, and because: Typically, a fraud is undertaken to dupe someone into parting with property or money. In other words, typically there is some motive explained for the perpetration of the fraud. The allegation of a fraud here, however, makes little sense.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

TPE ACQUISTION,INC. VS PLATINUM STAFFING

Platinum and Payroll) Deceit and Fraud (v. Platinum and Payroll) Negligent Misrepresentation (v. Platinum and Payroll) Alter Ego Liability (v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RUTH XIAOYU ZHANG VS NESTOR H. LLERNA

Fraud 2. Negligent Misrepresentation 3. Negligence 4. Breach of Civil Code § 2079 5. Breach of Contract On January 26, 2018, the court granted The Llerenas’ motion for summary judgment. On February 9, 2018, the “Order Granting Defendants Nestor H. Llerena and Myrna T. Llerena’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint” was filed. On February 26, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

NATALIE GAYEVA VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC, ET AL.

However, the Complaint, here, alleges violations of the UCL based on unfairness a fraud. While some courts have held that UCL actions based on unfairness are limited to actions by competitors alleging anticompetitive practices, other courts have allowed “unfairness” in consumer actions. (Morgan v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1235, 1254.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 15, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

CHRISTIAN CARRANZA VS DAVID PHILLIP MEYI, ET AL.

Not only must there be circumstances of oppression, fraud or malice, but facts must be alleged in the pleading to support such a claim. [Citation.]” (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166 [footnote omitted].) “[T]he imposition of punitive damages upon a corporation is based upon its own fault. It is not imposed vicariously by virtue of the fault of others.” (City Products Corp. v. Globe Indemnity Co. (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 31, 36.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

JEAN NDJONGO VS HENRY M. WILLIS, ET AL.

However, prejudgment interest may give given, at the discretion of the jury, in cases of fraud. (Civ. Code, § 3288.) Because Plaintiff’s fraud claim survives demurrer, it provides a basis for seeking prejudgment interest.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

STEVEN JONES V. GARY CONWAY, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (FAC) includes causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) intentional misrepresentation, (3) fraud, (4) money had and received, (5) quantum meruit, (6) declaratory relief, and (6) accounting. The parties’ dispute stems from a Contract for Consulting Services (the Contract), which the parties entered into on May 15, 2019. (FAC, ¶ 11.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants breached the Contract and failed to compensate Plaintiff for the work he performed under the Contract.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

CHAN WOO JANG VS YOUNG C OH, ET AL.

Fraud and Deceit (2nd Cause of Action) Intentional and negligent misrepresentation actions are subject to strict requirements of particularity in pleading. (Goldrich v. National Y Surgical Specialties, Inc. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 772, 782.) Fraud must be pled with specificity rather than with general and conclusory allegations. (Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 167,184.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RICHARD QUINTERO VAZQUEZ VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

When one party commits fraud during the contract formation or performance, the injured party may recover in both contract and tort. (Id.) Because plaintiff has adequately alleged fraud, her complaint is not barred by the economic loss rule.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DANIEL KANG VS VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.

Sixth Cause of Action for Fraud by Omission Statute of Limitations Code of Civil Procedure section 338 provides that a cause of action for relief on the ground of fraud or mistake must be brought within three years. (CCP § 338(d).) “The cause of action in that case is not deemed to have accrued until the discovery, by the aggrieved party, of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.” (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

SINA MELAMED VS MARCUS & MILLICHAP REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT SE

On February 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) violation of statutory duties, in the meaning of violation of Section 1785.20(a) of California Civil Code, Title 1.6, Chapter 3.5; (2) violation of California Business and Professions Code, Section 17200 (Bait and Switch); (3) breach of duty of fair dealing and good faith; and (4) common law fraud. Moving Defendant’s demurrer to the initial complaint was deemed moot and was taken off-calendar.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.