What is fraudulent concealment?

Useful Rulings on Fraudulent Concealment

Recent Rulings on Fraudulent Concealment

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

Demurrer Defendant demurs to plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for fraudulent concealment.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DANIEL KANG VS VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, 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 1199-1200.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

JESSICA STEVENS, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS NBA AUTOMOTIVE, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, 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 1199-1200.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GUZMAN VS FCA US, LLC

The fraudulent concealment claim in this case is not predicated on affirmative misrepresentations that led Plaintiffs to be exposed to liability or damages beyond those expected from a defective [product]. Robinson does not apply to Plaintiffs' fraudulent concealment claims as currently pled. In sum, Plaintiffs' claims in strict liability and fraudulent concealment as currently pled are precluded by the economic loss rule.” Id. at 904.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

ADAMS ANTIOCH WAREHOUSE VS. JASON WALKER

“When a plaintiff relies on a theory of fraudulent concealment, delayed accrual, equitable tolling, or estoppel to save a cause of action that otherwise appears on its face to be time-barred, he or she must specifically plead facts which, if proved, would support the theory.” (Mills v. Forestex Co. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 625, 641.) Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing fraudulent concealment by the City tolled the statute of limitations.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

KATIE O CONNELL MARSH VS GAUMONT TELEVISION USA LLC

On December 2, 2019, Gaumont filed the operative Second Amended Cross-Complaint (“SAXC”) against Plaintiff arising from the alleged employment and termination of Plaintiff, alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) conversion; (3) possession of personal property; (4) declaratory relief pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1060; (5) fraudulent inducement; and (6) fraudulent concealment.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

BRUCE A ARONSON VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC

As the court discussed above, Plaintiff has sufficiently pled fraudulent concealment and, therefore, the “fraud” necessary to plead punitive damages. (Turman, 191 Cal.App.4th at 63 (To state a claim for punitive damages, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud.))

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

XIAOFAN SUN VS HRC FERTILITY CLINIC, ET AL.

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on May 15, 2019, alleging six causes of action sounding in: (1) Fraud; (2) Fraudulent Concealment; (3) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; (4) Professional Negligence; (5) Negligent Training and Supervision; and (6) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MORTON VS. TESTA

Specifically, there is a triable issue of fact as to UMF #2 Morton’s Fourth Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment has no merit. DENIED. There is a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants were under the obligation to disclose the wood rot damage to the homes window. Specifically, there is a triable issue of fact as to UMF #2 Morton’s claim for exemplary damages has no merit. GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

KARINA BRAVO VS FCA US, LLC

For this reason, Plaintiff’s fraudulent concealment claim is barred by the economic loss rule. Citing to Robinson, Plaintiff responds that the economic loss rule does not apply because she is seeking to vindicate a right independent from those relied upon in her Song Beverly claims. Plaintiff explains that this right is predicated on fraud perpetrated by FCA at the time of sale. The Court is unpersuaded.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

BRUCE A ARONSON VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC

As the court discussed above, Plaintiff has sufficiently pled fraudulent concealment and, therefore, the “fraud” necessary to plead punitive damages. (Turman, 191 Cal.App.4th at 63 (To state a claim for punitive damages, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant is guilty of malice, oppression, or fraud.))

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

THUY CHUNG VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA INC ET AL

Next, as to the fraudulent concealment claim, VW argues that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts to show reasonable or justifiable reliance.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MORAN VS. FCA US, LLC

Defendant’s demurrer to sixth (fraudulent concealment) cause of action of plaintiff’s complaint. Demurrer sustained with 10 days leave to amend. (CCP 430.10(e).) First, plaintiff fails to allege facts supporting the scienter element, i.e. defendant’s intent to induce reliance. (Roddenberry v. Roddenberry (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 634 [elements of concealment]; Lazar v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

AGUILERA VS. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently plead facts to show that the subject Sentra suffered from any CVT transmission related issues which are the subject of the fraudulent concealment cause of action. Further, Plaintiffs’ fraudulent concealment cause of action is barred by the economic loss rule.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

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

J&J next argues that Plaintiffs do not possess, or cannot obtain sufficient evidence of a transactional relationship between J&J and Daniel Doyle to support a cause of action for fraudulent concealment.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

THOMAS O'BRIEN VS LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ET

The Court did not rule on BATO’s Motion for Summary Adjudication with respect to Plaintiff’s claims for Fraudulent Concealment and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

VALERIE PACHECO VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

As addressed above, this court finds Plaintiff has sufficiently pled a claim of fraudulent concealment. Defendant next asserts the amended complaint’s allegations are insufficient to support a claim against Nissan as a corporate defendant.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

LORENA GARCIA ET AL VS JAMES WOOD PROPERTIES LLC ET AL

Second, as to intentional misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment, scienter is a question of fact. (See Civ. Code, § 1574: “Actual fraud is always a question of fact.”) Intent to induce reliance is usually a “question of fact” for the jury. (Bily, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 414.) Moreover, “‘[i]ntent to influence is a threshold issue.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JOSE I. CORDOBA VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

With respect to Plaintiff’s argument of fraudulent concealment based on Defendant’s advertisements, Defendant asserts Plaintiff has not pointed to specific advertisements from Nissan that Plaintiff relied upon. (Reply, at p. 4.) Plaintiff has provided the text of the 2013 brochure for the Nissan Sentra and has stated Plaintiff prior to purchase reviewed marketing brochures. (See SAC, ¶ 74.) The foregoing is sufficient to plead ultimate facts of Nissan’s authorization of the wrongful conduct alleged.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JOSEPH K COFEY VS P.L.S. CHECK CASHING

Fraudulent concealment is a species of fraud. “There are four circumstances in which nondisclosure or concealment may constitute actionable fraud: (1) when the defendant is in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff; (2) when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff; (3) when the defendant actively conceals a material fact from the plaintiff; and (4) when the defendant makes partial representations but also suppresses some material facts.” LiMandri v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

DAVID IZAKELLIAN VS ADEES KEVORKIAN, ET AL.

.; (3) fraudulent concealment; (4) breach of contract; (5) negligent misrepresentation; and (6) action on a bond. Default was entered against Levon Mgrdichian (Defendant) on November 22, 2019. Defendant filed this motion to set aside/vacate default judgment on April 23, 2020. II.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GILBERT VALDEZ, ET AL. VS DARSHANA GARG, ET AL.

In their first cause of action for fraudulent concealment, Plaintiffs allege that they signed a one-year lease to rent the Premises on January 28, 2018. (Compl. ¶ 9.) During the lease’s negotiation, Plaintiffs allegedly pointed out brown stains on the Premises’ ceiling to Darshana. (Compl. ¶ 10.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

DRAKE KENNEDY, ET AL. VS BRIAN KENNEDY, ET AL.

On October 22, 2018, Drake Kennedy (“Drake”) filed his operative Complaint, alleging 8 causes of action for: (1) appointment of receiver, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) breach of written contract, (4) fraudulent concealment, (5) “removal of Brian Kennedy as a Director,” (6) accounting, (7) financial elder abuse, and (8) conversion. Drake’s operative Complaint alleges that in 2013, Drake brought a lawsuit against Brian alleging similar causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

HUMBERTO SALAZAR, JR., ET AL. VS FCA US LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Issue No. 3: Issue no. 3 relates to the request for punitive damages, which rises and falls with the fraudulent concealment claim. As that claim fails for the reasons discussed above, so does this damages request. Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

RIKA WAKAHARA VS STEVEN C DRESNER ET AL

Fraudulent Concealment; 4. Negligence Per Se. Defendants each move for orders granting summary adjudication as to the second through fourth causes of action of the Second Amended Complaint as follows: Issue 1: Plaintiff’s claim for Medical Battery lacks merit. Issue 2: Plaintiff’s claim for Fraudulent Concealment lacks merit. Issue 3: Plaintiff’s claim for Negligence Per Se lacks merit.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 73     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.