What is fraud?

Useful Rulings on Fraud

Recent Rulings on Fraud

1-25 of 10000 results

MARK LIU VS XUEFAN LIU

Zhang”) and Does 1-10 for: Breach of Contract Fraud Conversion Common Counts (i.e., Money Had and Received) On November 9, 2019, X. Liu’s and S. Zhang’s defaults were entered. On July 23, 2020, Plaintiff dismissed L. Zhang, without prejudice. An Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment is set for January 12, 2021. Discussion Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. The following defects are noted: S. Zhang’s liability remains unclear.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

HAI YING RUAN, ET AL. VS CUONG THOAI DIEP, ET AL.

If Plaintiffs’ case theory rests on the idea that Moving Defendants are liable because they aided and abetted the other defendants in this case, while not directly engaging in the tortious acts complained of, this tort needs to be pled as a separate cause of action specifically against these Moving Defendants, and not consolidated into the causes of action for conversion, fraud, etc. as against the other defendants not part of this motion.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CARRIEN QIAN HE, AN INDIVIDUAL VS JAY MIN CHEN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

On February 20, 2019, He filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants Chen, Hung and XTR, Nominal Defendant Globalinks and Does 1-30 for: Conversion Unauthorized Transfer of Corporate Assets Breach of Fiduciary Duty Embezzlement Fraud and Concealment Negligent Misrepresentation and Concealment Unjust Enrichment Removal of Director Corp Code § 304 Accounting Declaratory Relief Violation of Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LUZ BELTRAN, ET AL. VS NICHOLAS SCHWARTZ, ET AL.

On December 31, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Schwartz, Platinum and Does 1-100 for: Fraud and Deceit Negligence/Negligent Misrepresentation Breach of Contract Fraud in the Inducement On February 27, 2020, Schwartz’s and Platinum’s defaults were entered. A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Proceed with Default Judgment are set for December 3, 2020.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HAIM¿ AHRONI VS LISA¿ DIANE HARPER, 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.” (Grieves v. Superior Ct. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166, internal citations and footnotes omitted.)

  • Hearing

TAMEKA DIXON, ET AL. VS EDGAR S. GONZALEZ, ET AL.

Under CCP § 473, the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating an excusable ground, such as fraud or mistake, justifying a court’s vacating a judgment. (Basinger v. Roger & Wells (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 16, 23-24.) Here, Saul argues that the court should set aside the default entered against him based on excusable neglect. Saul argues he acted diligently in trying to secure legal representation when he learned about the lawsuit.

  • Hearing

JINSONG SHI VS ALG LAWYERS INC., ET AL.

However, as discussed above, the fraud claim survives demurrer. Punitive damages thus remain available for Defendant’s alleged conspiracy in the fraud scheme. However, “[t]he UCL does not authorize an award of attorney fees.” (People ex rel. City of Santa Monica v. Gabriel (2010) 186 Cal. App. 4th 882, 891.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

XIAOXING ZHANG VS ZHE ZHANG, ET AL.

Fifth Cause of Action – Fraud by False Promise Zhang argues that the Fifth Cause of Action for fraud fails because it is not pleaded with sufficient specificity. (Motion at p. 13.) Zhang also argues that this fraud claim is barred by the economic loss rule. (Motion at p. 15.) The economic loss rule “requires a purchaser to recover in contract for purely economic loss due to disappointed expectations, unless he can demonstrate harm above and beyond a broken contractual promise.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BAHRAM JARIDIAN VS SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL.

Sixth Cause of Action: Fraud (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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (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.” (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

MIRNA VILLANUEVA, ET AL. VS LAUREN LEE

Law Governing Punitive Damages in the Context of Driving Under the Influence Civil Code § 3294(a) states, “[i]n an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.”

  • Hearing

JIN HONG VS MICHELLE KIM, ET AL.

(“Dinglasan”), Meein Medical Corporation dba Eben Ezer Medical Clinic and Does 1-20 for: Negligence Negligent Misrepresentation Fraud—Concealment Fraud—Intentional Misrepresentation Negligent Hiring, Training and Supervision Respondeat Superior Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Punitive Damages On July 13, 2020, Kim filed a cross-complaint, asserting causes of action against Plaintiff, Douglas Borthwick and Does 1-100 for: Civil Extortion Fraud Breach of Settlement Agreement Malicious

  • Hearing

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS EMMA GRISHAI SARKISJAN, ET AL.

Insured Defendants Emma Grishai Sarkisjan, Arusyak Nikogosyan and Greta Amirdzjanian breached the "Concealment and Fraud" condition of their policy with State Farm Mutual, thereby eliminating further right to policy benefits relating to the alleged accident of May 17, 2019, including but not limited to claims for Medical Payments Coverage and Uninsured Motor Vehicle Coverage; and 3.

  • Hearing

HENRY ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ VS MICHELE BRAVO, ET AL.

Both the original and proposed amended answers contain four purported affirmative defenses, for Breach of Oral and Written Contract, Anticipatory Repudiation, Unjust Enrichment and Fraud. The proposed amended answer contains prefatory language seeks to add an FHA Gift Letter and “all supporting wire receipts” as an additional exhibit. The motion is not opposed.

  • Hearing

CATHY LOGISTICS, INC. VS BLAKE B OSBORNE, ET AL.

On August 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants and Does 1-50 for: Breach of Contract Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Fraud On November 8, 2019, Venetian’s and Fair’s defaults were entered. On November 19, 2019, Osborne’s default was entered. A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment are set for December 1, 2020.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BLANCA Y NAVARRO, ET AL. VS ROBERT WU, ET AL.

Civil Code § 3294 authorizes recovery of punitive damages on the basis of findings that “the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice.” “Oppression” is defined to mean “despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of the person’s rights.” “Malice” is defined to mean “despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety or others.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

STARA ORIEN VS MISTA L LUTZ ET AL

Chelese also contends that because the order was obtained through Plaintiff’s fraud and misrepresentation, Chelese may request that the case be reopened even should it have been dismissed with prejudice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CARLOS ANTHONY LOPEZ VS THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES

Background Plaintiff Carlos Anthony Lopez (“Plaintiff”) alleges fraud and misrepresentations in a dependency case, involving the removal of his infant son in 2013. On November 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint. On November 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed an “Amended Complaint Civil Rights Violation 42 U.S.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

YANG NAM KIM VS KOREA SENIOR CITIZENS MUTUAL CLUB, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Fraud must be pleaded specifically. To survive demurrer relating to fraud claims, a plaintiff must plead facts that “show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.” (Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors XXVI, LLC (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1602, 1614.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BORISOV VS WELLS FARGO MERCHANT SERVICES, LLC

Plaintiff has not alleged fraud as a cause of action.

  • Hearing

HENARD V GEISER

In addition, the FAC fails to allege any facts to support the claim of fraud and therefore fails to state a cause of action against Defendants, and is uncertain Defendants’ RFJN is granted in its entirety

  • Hearing

NEIL YESCHIN VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

Sixth Cause of Action: Fraud by Omission Defendant demurs to Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action for fraud by omission.

  • Hearing

BHARDWAJBHAI PATEL VS FRANCISCO MARTINEZ BALSECA

Civil Code § 3294(a) states, “[i]n an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” Allegations that a defendant exhibited a conscious disregard for the safety of others are sufficient to show malice. (Taylor v.

  • Hearing

DAISY COVARRUBIAS, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ET AL.

Statute of Limitations There is a three-year statute of limitations for “[a]n action for relief on the ground of fraud or mistake. 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (d.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

TAMARA CHOLAKIAN VS STEPHEN SANTEN

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 Ct. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 166 (footnote omitted).)

  • Hearing

DONALD HEINSHEIMER LEEDS VS STOLTZ MANAGEMENT OF DELAWARE, INC., ET AL.

Fraud” is defined as “an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.” (Civ. Code, § 3294 (c)(3).) Punitive damages may only be awarded where there is actual damage.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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 load this page.