What is fraudulent concealment?

Useful Rulings on Fraudulent Concealment

Recent Rulings on Fraudulent Concealment

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

In Jones, the court held that the plaintiffs (family members of a deceased worker exposed to toxic chemicals) had alleged facts sufficient to support a claim of fraudulent concealment against the chemical manufacturers. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that defendants alone were aware of their products’ toxicity, it was a fact not available to the decedent, and the defendants concealed that fact. (Id. at pp. 1199-1200.)

  • Hearing

NEIL YESCHIN VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

Here, although the concealed defects may be material, and the Court recognizes that an agency relationship is not required, there are simply no allegations of any “transaction” between Plaintiff and Defendant in the Complaint so as to maintain this claim for fraudulent concealment. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s fraud claim is barred by the economic loss rule.

  • Hearing

LABARBER VS DIAMOND AUTO EXCHANGE INC

A claim for fraudulent concealment can be based on facts known only to a defendant, defendant knows plaintiff does not know these facts and cannot reasonably discover them, and where the defendant actively conceals discovery from plaintiff. (Warner Constro. Corp. v. L.A. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 285, 294.)

  • Hearing

NIETO V. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

Here, Plaintiffs claim for fraud relies on fraudulent concealment. (Complaint, ¶ 72, 74.) As a result, the Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s demurrer to the third cause of action. Because the Court has found that the economic loss rule applies, the court does not reach the merits of the Defendant’s remaining arguments regarding this cause of action.

  • Hearing

SBH CAMDEN PROPERTIES, L.P. V. MIRASSOU, ET AL.

And so, while fraudulent concealment must still be pleaded with specificity, less specificity is required as to facts presumptively within the defendant’s knowledge. (Ibid.) Here, Camden Properties fails to allege sufficient facts with specificity to state a claim for fraudulent concealment. Camden Properties does not allege facts giving rise to a duty to disclose by Taco Bell.

  • Hearing

CA RESIDENTIAL OPPORTUNITY FUND LP VS NELSON

Hibernia Bank (1956) 47 Cal.2d 540, 561 (stating a fiduciary's conversion of property entrusted to him by plaintiff is akin to a fraudulent concealment."); Niiya v. Goto (1960) 181 Cal.App.2d 682, 688. It is undisputed that the intercompany loans were periodically disclosed to plaintiffs. (PSS Nos. 77-94) Fourth Cause of Action for Waste "[W]aste is defined as 'an unlawful act or omission of duty on the part of a tenant, resulting in permanent injury to the [property].'" [Avalon Pacific-Santa Ana, L.P. v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JENNY RIVERA VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Defendant contends that the third cause of action is insufficiently pled because the Complaint fails to plead fraudulent concealment with the required specificity. (Demurrer, 3-7.)

  • Hearing

ASSADULLAH SHAHAND, ET AL. VS NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, ET AL.

Fraud “The required elements for fraudulent concealment are: (1) concealment or suppression of a material fact; (2) by a defendant with a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff; (3) the defendant intended to defraud the plaintiff by intentionally concealing or suppressing the fact; (4) the plaintiff was unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he or she did if he or she had known of the concealed or suppressed fact; and (5) plaintiff sustained damage as a result of the concealment or suppression

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

VERA MAE RHYMES VS SHLOMO RECHNITZ , ET AL.

Fourth Cause of Action – Fraudulent Concealment The fourth cause of action alleges Defendants engaged in Medicare fraud by failing to disclose that Rockport was a related party to Shlomo Rechnitz. Alameda and Rockport argue that the FAC does not plead a duty to disclose, intent to defraud, and damage as a result of the concealment. (Demurrer at pp. 11-12.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

HIGGINSON VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC

Thus, Defendant's contention lacks merit based on delayed discovery, and it is not necessary to address Plaintiff's other arguments. 6th COA: FRAUD BY OMISSION A cause of action for fraudulent concealment requires (1) concealment or suppression of a material fact; (2) by Defendant with a duty to disclose the fact to Plaintiff; (3) Defendant intended to defraud Plaintiff by intentionally concealing or suppressing the fact; (4) Plaintiff was unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he or she did if he

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

HANS H. KIM, ET AL. VS. CUIL INVESTMENTS LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Plaintiffs have not stated a cause of action for fraudulent concealment under Lovejoy, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 against the MPI Defendants. Analysis as to JMS Defendants Initially, Plaintiffs fail to respond, with legal authority, to the argument that JMS did not owe Plaintiffs a duty to disclose the condition of the Property’s roof and have conceded to such point of argument under Moulton, supra, 111 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1215.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

ROBERT S. SHUMAKE LIVING TRUST 1994 VS JASON Q. WILSON TRUST DATED OCTOBER 18, 2007 ET AL

On May 22, 2019, LAA filed its cross-complaint against Shumake for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, and declaratory relief. On October 4, 2019, Shumake dismissed its complaint without prejudice. The cross-complaint remains. On October 7, 2019, LAA served its first sets of special interrogatories, form interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admission on Shumake.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

MARQUEZ VS NISSAN NORTH AMERIC

As Bigler-Engler reflects, a fraudulent concealment claim may rest on partial and misleading communications to consumers in general, and therefore to the particular consumer in the case. (7 Cal.App.5th at 312-14).

  • Hearing

RYAN HARPER ET AL VS MANHATTAN INN OPERATING COMPANY LLC

The fraudulent concealment and negligence claims require that Preferred owed a duty to Plaintiffs. The conspiracy and UCL claims are derivative of these claims as they require an underlying unlawful act or legal violation. Under California law, there is generally no fiduciary duty between a lender and a borrower. Nymark v. Heart Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1089, 1093, fn. 1.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LETICIA MUNOZ OLMOS, ET AL. VS JRDTSP LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DBA SCOTT ROBINSON CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM, ET AL.

Here, Plaintiffs’ fraud by omission claim is premised on fraudulent concealment or inducement, which is generally sufficient to establish an independent duty. As noted above, Plaintiffs have adequately plead fraudulent inducement by concealment. Additionally, Plaintiffs sufficiently allege exposure to potential liability to themselves and others.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARIA DEL CARMEN VALDOVINOS ROSALES, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

“In considering a fraudulent concealment claim, ‘[the Court] begin[s] with the threshold question of duty. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Hoffman v. 162 North Wolfe LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1193.) “[T]o establish fraud through nondisclosure or concealment of facts, it is necessary to show the defendant ‘was under a legal duty to disclose them.’ [Citation]” (OCM Principal Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. CIBC World Markets Corp. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 835, 845; see also Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Com. v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

WILLIAM DWIGHT TOUCHBERRY ET AL VS DOES 1 TO 250

On February 13, 2018, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against Does 1-250 for: C/A 1: By William against Defendants for Negligence C/A 2: By William against Defendants for Strict Liability (Failure to Warn) C/A 3: By William against Defendants for Strict Liability (Design Defect) C/A 4: By William against Defendants for Fraudulent Concealment C/A 5: By William against Defendants for Breach of Implied Warranties C/A 6: By Laurie against Defendants for Loss of Consortium On August 27, 2020 Defendant Rust-Oleum

  • Hearing

WILLIAM TUTTON, ET AL. VS SUSAN K BALMFORTH

Fourth Cause of Action: Fraudulent Concealment Defendant demurrers to the fourth cause of action contending that the fourth cause of action is not pled with the required specificity.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LONG NGUYEN VS FCA US LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

However, if Defendant failed to warn that installing a third party appliance to the vehicle would void the warranty at the time of contract, then such may support a claim for fraudulent concealment. Because those facts have not been pled, demurrer is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend. 7th CAUSE OF ACTION UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES: The Unfair Business Practices Act shall include “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” (B&P Code 17200.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PARVIZ DAMAVANDI VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

In Jones, the court held that the plaintiffs (family members of a deceased worker exposed to toxic chemicals) had alleged facts sufficient to support a claim of fraudulent concealment against the chemical manufacturers. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that defendants alone were aware of their products’ toxicity, it was a fact not available to the decedent, and the defendants concealed that fact. (Id. at 1199-1200.)

  • Hearing

PARVIZ DAMAVANDI VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

In Jones, the court held that the plaintiffs (family members of a deceased worker exposed to toxic chemicals) had alleged facts sufficient to support a claim of fraudulent concealment against the chemical manufacturers. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that defendants alone were aware of their products’ toxicity, it was a fact not available to the decedent, and the defendants concealed that fact. (Id. at 1199-1200.)

  • Hearing

NIA LOWE CASSELMAN VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC

Further, Defendant’s fraudulent concealment of the defects would not have prevented Plaintiff from discovering whether the product was merchantable at the time of sale. Thus, equitable estoppel, tolling and delayed discovery do not apply. Plaintiff also allege that the claim is saved by American Pipe class-action tolling. The statute of limitations on class members' individual claims is tolled while a timely filed class action involving the same claims is pending. (See American Pipe & Const. Co. v.

  • Hearing

BRANDON VS. SUMMIT RIDGE COMMU

But Plaintiffs do not explain how this applies to claims other than that specifically alleged in the Fifth Cause of Action, which is explicitly for Fraudulent Concealment. Fraudulent Concealment Defendants make parallel arguments with respect to the Fifth Cause of Action, and the Court’s ruling is the same. If Plaintiffs can amend to allege material facts that were concealed, on which Plaintiffs relied, and as a result sustained damage, then they may do so.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Campins

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

GARCIA VS. GENERAL MOTORS

As Bigler-Engler reflects, a fraudulent concealment claim may rest on partial and misleading communications to consumers in general, and therefore to the particular consumer in the case. (7 Cal.App.5th at 312-14).

  • Hearing

DAD V. SCHWARTZ

Plaintiffs allege in these causes of action that Defendants are responsible for Son’s unlawful confinement, that Defendants failed to ensure his rights were considered, and “Defendants actions are fraudulent concealment of facts and spoliation of evidence.” In the negligent misrepresentation claim, Plaintiffs allege Defendants falsely labeled Son as psychotic and “gravely disabled.”

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 86     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.