Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
“[T]he elements of a cause of action for fraud based on concealment are:
(Kaldenbach v. Mutual of Omaha Life Ins. Co. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 830, 850, 100 Cal.Rptr.3d 637; Bigler-Engler v. Breg, Inc. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 276, 310–311; Hambridge v. Healthcare Partners Medical Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 124, 162.)
Fraud must be pleaded with specificity rather than with general and conclusory allegations. (Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 230, 248.) This means that a plaintiff must plead every element of fraud with specificity (Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 157) and plead facts which 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).
In addition, when a plaintiff is asserting fraud against a corporate defendant, the plaintiff must allege the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written. (Tenet Healthsystem Desert, Inc. v. Blue Cross of California (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 821, 838.)
Although the general rule states that a fraud claim must be specifically pleaded, less specificity is required if “it appears from the nature of allegations that defendant must necessarily possess full information,” or if the “facts lie more in the knowledge of” opposing parties. (Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384.) “[T]he courts should not... seek to absolve the defendant from liability on highly technical requirements of form in pleading. Pleading facts in ordinary and concise language is as permissible in fraud cases as in any others, and liberal construction of the pleading is as much a duty of the court in these as in other cases.” (Appollo Capital Fund, LLC v. Roth Capital Partners, LLC (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 226, 242.)
The rule of specificity of pleading is intended to apply only to affirmative representations and not to fraud by concealment. (See Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384; Jones v. ConocoPhillips (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1187, 1200 [concealment is sufficiently pled when the complaint as a whole provides sufficient notice of the claims against defendants].) This requirement is thus harder to apply to cases of nondisclosure because, for instance, it is difficult to show “how” and “by what means” something did not happen. (Id.) Fraudulent concealment is usually proven by reasonable inferences drawn from other facts. (Tenzer v. Superscope, Inc. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 18, 30.) “Every person connected with a fraud is liable for the full amount of the damages. Thus, individuals who are parties to the consummation of a fraud are equally responsible with the person with whom a contract induced by the fraud is made.” (23 Cal.Jur.2d, Fraud and Deceit, § 47, pp. 114-115; Conlin v. Studebaker Bros. Co., 175 Cal. 395, 398 [165 P. 1009].)
There are four circumstances in which nondisclosure or concealment may constitute actionable fraud:
(LiMandri v. Judkins (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 326, 336.)
“[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.’” (OCM Principal Opportunities Fund v. CIBC World Markets Corp. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 835, 845.) “Our Supreme Court has described the necessary relationship giving rise to a duty to disclose as a ‘transaction’ between the plaintiff and defendant.” (Bigler-Engler v. Breg, Inc. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 276, 311.) “Such a transaction must necessarily arise from direct dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant; it cannot arise between the defendant the public at large.” (Id.)
Where a fiduciary relationship does not exist between the parties, only the latter three circumstances may apply. (Bigler-Engler v. Breg, Inc. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 276, 311.) These three circumstances presuppose the existence of some other relationship between the plaintiff and defendant in which a duty to disclose can arise, such as seller and buyer, employer and prospective employee, doctor and patient, or parties entering into any kind of contractual arrangement. (Id.) “Although, typically, a duty to disclose arises when a defendant owes a fiduciary duty to a plaintiff, a duty to disclose may also arise when a defendant possesses or exerts control over material facts not readily available to the plaintiff.” (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 482, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 225.) Exclusive knowledge has not been defined literally, but may be met if the defendant had “superior” knowledge of a defect or was in a “superior position of knowledge.” (In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation (C.D. Cal. 2010) 754 F.Supp.2d 1145, 1192.)
“[M]ere conclusionary allegations that the omissions were intentional and for the purpose of defrauding and deceiving plaintiffs and bringing about the purchase... and that plaintiffs relied on the omissions in making such purchase are insufficient....” (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 347.)
“One who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury or risk, is liable for any damages which he thereby suffers.” (Civil Code § 1709.) “In order to recover for fraud, as in any other tort, the plaintiff must plead and prove the “detriment proximately caused” by the defendant's tortious conduct. (Civil Code § 3333.) Deception without resulting loss is not actionable fraud. (Hill v. Wrather (1958) 158 Cal.App.2d 818, 825, 323 P.2d 567.) “Whatever form it takes, the injury or damage must not only be distinctly alleged but its causal connection with the reliance on the representations must be shown.” (Service by Medallion, Inc. v. Clorox Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1807, 1818.) In other words, “Reliance is an essential element of a fraudulent concealment claim.” (Sevidal v. Target Corp. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 905, 928.) “At the pleading stage, the complaint must show a cause and effect relationship between the fraud and damages sought; otherwise no cause of action is stated.” (Patrick v. Alacer Corp. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 995, 1017.)
Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged all elements of a claim for fraudulent concealment. Defendants Fernando Micheli and Janice Micheli’s motion to strike is DENIED in its entirety. Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged her claim for fraudulent concealment. Therefore punitive damages are permitted in connection with the 2nd cause of action for fraudulent concealment (CC § 3294(c)) and in connection with the 6th/7th cause of action for retaliatory eviction (C.C. 1942.5(f)(2).).
HALLAM VS. MICHELI
30-2016-00878411-CU-BC-CJC
Jun 01, 2017
Orange County, CA
General Motors, LLC Demurrer to Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment for Failure to State A Claim Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment for Failure to State A Claim is SUSTAINED WITH 120 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause for fraud with the requisite specificity stating what was concealed, who at Defendant corporation was aware of the facts concealed and when.
VICTOR GARCIA VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC
23CV-00938
Jul 18, 2023
Merced County, CA
In addition to the Song-Beverly causes of action, Garcia alleges a cause of action for fraudulent concealment. GM demurs to the fraudulent concealment cause of action on three grounds: (1) it is time-barred; (2) it is not plead with sufficient particularity; (3) the facts do not demonstrate a duty to disclose. Pursuant to the reasoning below, the demurrer is overruled.
PEDRO HERNANDEZ GARCIA, AN INDIVIDUAL VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
23AHCV00698
Feb 21, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
The demurrer to the second cause of action for fraudulent concealment is sustained without leave to amend. The Second Amended Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts regarding the elements of duty and intent to defraud on the fraudulent concealment claim. Defendant has until on or before September 1, 2017 to file an answer.
PRODIGAL SUN, LLC VS. SUJA LIFE LLC
37-2016-00029214-CL-BC-CTL
Aug 15, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
Defendant Ford Motor Company's demurrer to the sixth cause of action for fraudulent concealment is sustained with twenty days leave to amend. Plaintiff Kathleen Petree has adequately alleged the elements of a claim for fraudulent concealment that is not barred by the economic loss rule. However, the face of the complaint shows that the fraudulent concealment claim is time-barred unless the delayed discovery rule or some tolling doctrine applies. Ms.
KATHLEEN PETREE VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY ET AL
CGC16553491
Nov 16, 2016
San Francisco County, CA
However, as this court has previously noted, the allegations supporting the fraudulent concealment cause of action were not pled with the requisite specificity. The Dhital second amended complaint contains significantly more factual detail to support the claim for fraudulent concealment than Plaintiff’s complaint herein. Itis for this reason that the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted with 30 days leave to amend.
BELLO VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO INC
RIC2004216
Jan 31, 2023
Riverside County, CA
The same cannot be said for the Fraudulent Concealment cause of action. There is no basis giving rise to a claim for fraudulent concealment. Additionally, discovery is ongoing, the inclusion of a claim for intentional misrepresentation would not substantially alter the Complaint, and the parties do not yet have a trial date.
COLUMBIA ENTERPRISES, LLC VS T.M. COBB COMPANY
RIC1403333
Jan 19, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Here, the alleged fraudulent concealment resulted only in purely economic loss. Plaintiffs do not claim that the vehicle’s alleged defects caused any personal injury or damage to property other than the vehicle. (See Robinson, 34 Cal. 4th at 988.) Therefore, the economic loss rule precludes Plaintiffs’ fraudulent concealment claim. Plaintiffs cannot avail themselves of the “narrow” exception to the economic loss rule articulated in the California Supreme Court decision Robinson, 34 Cal. 4th at 993.
OROZCO VS. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.
30-2019-01054153
Aug 05, 2019
Orange County, CA
SUSTAINED without leave to amend as to fraud, OVERRULED as to fraudulent concealment. Motion to Strike Punitive Damages Plaintiffs properly alleged fraudulent concealment. Since fraud can give rise to an award of punitive damages, plaintiffs punitive damages request is proper. DENIED.
MICHAEL JAMES NOHAILE AND KRISTIN ANNE YAREMA AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE NOHAILE-YARE VS HLI HOLDINGS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
20SMCV00909
Oct 18, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
However, fraudulent concealment claims do not require as much specificity as affirmative misrepresentation claims. ( Alfaro, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 1384.)
LUIS ALBERTO BECERRA GUTIERREZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
22CHCV01104
Apr 19, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
DEFENDANT MAY LEE, HOWARD LEE Notice Of Motion And Motion By Defendants And Cross-Complainants For Leave To File Second Amended Cross-Complaint To Assert Fraudulent Concealment, Intentional Misrepresentation, And Negligent Misrepresentation; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Thereof GRANTED. = (501/REQ)
JEFFERSON CHRISMAN VS. HOWARD LEE ET AL
CGC17561323
Aug 07, 2018
San Francisco County, CA
These allegations, which must be treated as true on demurrer, establish the elements of fraudulent concealment. OVERRULED. Motion to Strike Defendant moves to strike plaintiff’s request for punitive damages on the grounds that plaintiff has not adequately alleged fraud. As explained, plaintiff sufficiently set forth a cause of action for fraudulent concealment, a species of fraud. DENIED.
10880 WILSHIRE, LLC, ET AL. VS THE CALIFORNIAN ON WILSHIRE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, ET AL.
19SMCV00698
Feb 21, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
The tort of fraudulent concealment is only viable where a duty to disclose does exist.
PEDRO HERNANDEZ GARCIA, AN INDIVIDUAL VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
23AHCV00698
Jun 26, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff’s best opportunity to seek punitive damages is based on fraudulent concealment. As discussed in the Court’s ruling on the demurrer, Plaintiffs have not alleged a claim for fraudulent concealment. Thus, Plaintiffs have not alleged facts supporting an award of punitive damages.
AMEZCUA VS. MERCEDES-BENZ
MSC20-01946
Jun 21, 2021
Contra Costa County, CA
Statute of Limitations Bars Any Fraudulent Concealment Claim Bank of America argues, in the alternative, that any claim for fraudulent concealment is barred by the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations for fraud (including fraudulent concealment) is three years. (Code Civil Proc. § 338(d)).
BANK OF AMERICA,N.A. VS ARNOLD D. SCHRAGER
VC067045
Mar 07, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
’s fraudulent concealment was the cause of plaintiff’s damages.
MARIA DE JESUS DOMINGUEZ VS DOES 1 THROUGH 100
19STCV32811
Sep 11, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
An 3) Fraudulent Concealment v. An 4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty v. An 5) Fraudulent Concealment v. An, Ma Shaos, Alliance 6) Fraudulent Concealment v. An, Ma, Shaos, Alliance 7) Fraudulent Concealment v. An, Ma, Shaos, Alliance 8) Breach of Fiduciary Duty v. J. Shao, Ma, Alliance 9) Quiet Title v. An 10) Quiet Title v. An 11) Quiet Title v. An 12) Constructive Trust 13) Conversion v. J. Shao 14) Conversion v. An, Zhang 15) Common Count for Money Lent v.
XUE ZHONG LIU ET AL VS. YU XIN AN
EC064414
Jul 28, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
The plaintiff brought claims for fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation, and the jury awarded punitive damages based on a finding that the defendant had made false misrepresentations of fact and had knowingly misrepresented or concealed material facts with the intent to defraud.
AMADOR HERNANDEZ VS. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL
21-CIV-00360
Nov 14, 2021
San Mateo County, CA
The plaintiff brought claims for fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation, and the jury awarded punitive damages based on a finding that the defendant had made false misrepresentations of fact and had knowingly misrepresented or concealed material facts with the intent to defraud.
AMADOR HERNANDEZ VS. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL
21-CIV-00360
Nov 07, 2021
San Mateo County, CA
But this argument is completely inapplicable to a claim for fraudulent concealment, where plaintiff alleges no one spoke. Since plaintiff sufficiently alleges fraudulent concealment, it may pursue punitive damages under Civil Code §3294. Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4th 385, 404. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the ruling unless notice is waived.
BROADWAY MICHELSON LLC VS. CDG BUILDERS INC.
30-2019-01057902
Jun 21, 2019
Orange County, CA
The Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) does not allege any specific facts against defendants supporting a claim of punitive damages for fraudulent concealment. There are no allegations that defendants were under a duty to disclose to plaintiff the fact that they hired independent contractors (Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 230, 248 [listing elements of an action for fraudulent concealment].)
PRIVATE CLUB MARKETING INCORPORATED VS. BASS
30-2016-00832707-CU-BT-CJC
Feb 01, 2017
Orange County, CA
The First Amended Complaint alleges sufficient facts to state a claim for fraudulent concealment. _____________________________________________ Defendants Tanner Eide and Elizabeth Eide's Motion to Strike is granted in part and denied in part. The motion to strike the allegations relating to the fraudulent concealment claim and prayer for punitive damages is denied. Defendants have failed to meet their burden these allegations are false, irrelevant or improper.
BREITENBACH VS EIDE
37-2016-00012480-CU-FR-CTL
Mar 23, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Demurrer to Complaint as to Fourth Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment filed by Nissan; OVERRULED; Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is DENIED as irrelevant and improper. (See Bolanos v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 744, 761). The Complaint alleges sufficient facts that Nissan’s authorized agents engaged in fraudulent concealment. (See ¶63 of the FAC) Defendant is ordered to file and serve its Answer within 10 days-notice of the hearing. Plaintiff to provide notice. 2.
JACINTO VS. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.
30-2018-01009203-CU-BC-CJC
Jan 28, 2019
Orange County, CA
Plaintiff fails to establish tolling under delayed discovery, the class action rule or fraudulent concealment. Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action for Fraudulent Concealment under the sixth cause of action; Plaintiff has not alleged any relationship or transaction with Kia that gives rise to a duty to disclose. On the seventh Cause of Action for violation of the CLRA, Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled the Notice requirement.
LUNA VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.
RIC2000768
Mar 09, 2021
Riverside County, CA
Plaintiffs thereby waived any objection to SROG Nos. 17-19, and the Court therefore finds that SROG Nos. 17-19 constitute sufficiently comprehensive written discovery as to both Plaintiffs’ Third Cause of Action for Negligent Misrepresentation and Fourth Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment.
VAN DYKE-DIXON VS AMERICAN ART CLAY CO., INC.
RG20071432
Feb 09, 2024
Alameda County, CA
Paragraphs 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, and 25 are asserted as part of the cause of action for fraudulent concealment. Given that Plaintiffs cause of action for fraudulent concealment was sufficiently pled, these paragraphs are not conclusory and are relevant to the cause of action. Accordingly, Wahbas motion is denied as to these paragraphs.
AILEEN MUNOZ VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ORTHOPEDIC INSTITUTE, LP, ET AL.
22STCV10249
Sep 27, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The FAC seeks punitive damages in connection with the fraudulent concealment claim. In light of the Courts ruling on the Demurrers regarding the sufficiency of the fraudulent concealment allegations, the Court GRANTS the Motions with 20 days leave to amend. Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
LEOBARDO SEGURA-MEZA, ET AL. VS AGOURA HILLS MARBLE AND GRANITE, INC., ET AL.
22STCV38729
Oct 12, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant’s demurrer to the second cause of action (fraudulent concealment) of plaintiff’s second amended complaint. Demurrer overruled. The second amended complaint states sufficient facts in support of its second cause of action for fraudulent concealment. (See SAC ¶¶ 7-8, 15-17, Exh. A; see also Knox v. Dean (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 417, 433 [elements].)
SUN FIBER PARTNERS I, LLC VS. POWERS
30-2018-00988034-CU-FR-CJC
Jan 17, 2020
Orange County, CA
Because the fraudulent concealment cause of action is adequately stated, the demurrer is OVERRULED. With respect to the motion to strike, defendant moves to strike the prayers for punitive damages and supporting allegations. As discussed above, plaintiff has properly pled a claim for fraudulent concealment. As such, plaintiff has sufficiently pled fraudulent conduct that may give rise to punitive damage liability.
MARIA DE JESUS DOMINGUEZ VS DOES 1 THROUGH 100
19STCV32811
Oct 02, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
On September 15, 2023, Ma and Alliance Global (collectively, Demurring Defendants) filed this demurrer to the First Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment I, Second Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment II, Third Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty I, and Fourth Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment III.
XUE XIN LIU, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS FEI ZHOU, ET AL.
23AHCV01215
Dec 22, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Overrule the VTD Defendants' general demurer to the first cause of action for fraudulent concealment, on the ground that Plaintiffs allege sufficient facts to hold the VTD Defendants liable for fraudulent concealment based on the alleged intentionally delay in issuing the 2009 Financial Statement.
MARK ENGLE VS. ROYAL BUSINESS BANK
56-2013-00437879-CU-FR-VTA
Aug 02, 2016
Ventura County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
The Court finds that, while Plaintiff has attempted to allege various elements of fraudulent concealment with specificity, Plaintiff’s fraudulent concealment claim is nonetheless barred by the economic loss doctrine. Plaintiff cites no binding legal authority that extends the Supreme Court’s expressly narrow exception in Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 993 for affirmative misrepresentations to fraudulent concealment claims.
FLORES VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC
30-2020-01149488
Apr 26, 2021
Orange County, CA
Contrary to the Defendants arguments, the Court finds that Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for fraudulent concealment.
GENEVIEVE GERMAIN VS BEHRINGER HARVARD REDWOOD, LLC, A COMPANY OF UNKNOWN ORIGIN, ET AL.
23STLC00997
Jul 17, 2023
Echo Dawn Ryan
Los Angeles County, CA
Because Plaintiff has adequately alleged fraudulent concealment, this cause of action is not barred by the economic loss rule. Allowing Plaintiff’s fraudulent concealment cause of action to proceed will promote, rather than undermine, the public policy of allowing parties to freely bargain over special risks, because parties who are deprived of material facts governing their decision to enter into a contract do not “freely” enter into the contract.
ANDREA ARAMBULA VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC
20STCV48900
May 26, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The court finds that the economic loss rule does not generally bar a fraudulent concealment claim.
GEORGE WILLIAMS VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
21STCV25834
Oct 22, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The causes of action are: (1) Negligence; (2) Strict Liability Warning Defect; (3) Strict Liability Design Defect; (4) Fraudulent Concealment; (5) Breach of Implied Warranties; and (6) Loss of Consortium. Defendant GLOBAL STONE TRADING, INC. filed this demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment, as well as a motion to strike punitive damages allegations in the Complaint. Plaintiffs oppose the demurrer and motion to strike.
JAIME BLANCO MACIEL, ET AL. VS ALPHA TILE AND STONE, INC., ET AL.
23STCV12007
Jan 29, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff alleges fraudulent concealment against a subcontractor on the project. An element of this cause of action is that the defendant had a duty to disclose the information to the plaintiff. There are no allegations this subcontractor breached such a duty; indeed, its contract was with the general contractor, not plaintiff.
CONTINUING LIFE COMMUNITIES THOUSAND OAKS, LLC V. HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION CO. ()
30-2016-00885267-CU-BC-CJC
Nov 16, 2017
Orange County, CA
Fraudulent concealment Liu argues that the fraudulent concealment claim is insufficiently plead because there are no facts of concealment or suppression. Liu also argues that JCTLA has not alleged specific facts as to what acts it would have taken. JCTLA opposes the demurrer, arguing that it has plead a concealment of a material fact, citing paragraph 26.
JUSTIN LIU VS JEAN LIU, ET AL.
20SMCV00486
Jun 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
Moz-Murcia asserts causes of action for (1) negligence, (2) strict liability warning defect, (3) strict liability design defect, (4) fraudulent concealment and (5) breach of implied warranties. As relief, Moz-Murcia seeks compensatory and punitive damages from the Defendants. Pending before the Court is the demurrer of Defendant Francini, Inc. to the cause of action for fraudulent concealment.
WILLIAM MOZ-MURCIA VS ARCHITECTURAL SURFACES, INC., ET AL.
23STCV06384
Oct 02, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
However, as pled the facts do not provide sufficient facts to support a finding that either TGC and/or Risk conspired with the other defendants to commit fraudulent concealment or negligence. The first cause of action is for fraudulent concealment against all defendants. The second cause of action is for negligence against defendants O’Keefe and the real estate company she worked for LQR, along with the moving parties.
PSC 1602890
Nov 30, 2016
Riverside County, CA
As set forth in Barnhouse, supra, such fraudulent concealment requires not just the fraudulent misrepresentation and/or fraudulent concealment of a material fact there is a duty to disclose, it also requires justifiable reliance. While plaintiffs allege that St.
MARSHALL R BERNES ET AL VS ED ST. GEORGE ET AL
20CV00235
Jun 04, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
Demurrer Defendant Nissan North America, Inc.’s Demurrer to Plaintiffs’ fourth cause of action for fraudulent concealment is SUSTAINED with 15 days leave to amend.
TRUJILLO V. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.
30-2019-01062989
Sep 19, 2019
Orange County, CA
The court finds that Hoefflin has carried his initial burden showing no triable issue of material fact as to Hoefflin’s liability for fraudulent concealment. Plaintiffs do not oppose this conclusion. Plaintiffs’ claim for negligent misrepresentation is based on the same allegations as the claim for fraudulent concealment. (TAC ¶¶ 56–60.) Hoefflin argues that the claim fails for essentially the same reasons as the fraudulent concealment claim. (Motion at pp.12–13.)
ANA RIVAS ET AL VS GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ ET AL
BC588422
Nov 30, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
The Court finds that Plaintiffs cannot invoke the doctrine of fraudulent concealment to toll the statute of limitations because Plaintiffs have not: (1) shown reasonable diligence; and (2) alleged with specificity the circumstances of how the alleged fraudulent concealment was discovered. In sum, Plaintiffs attempt to invoke the delayed discovery and fraudulent concealment doctrines are insufficient. (SAC at ¶¶ 16-30.)
MARIA ROA, ET AL. VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV14161
Feb 18, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
Defendant’s demurrer to the first (battery), third (IIED), fourth (fraudulent concealment), and fifth (nuisance) causes of action of the first amended complaint. Demurrer sustained with 10 days leave to amend. First cause of action for battery: This cause of action fails as plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts showing his injuries were caused by an intended act of defendants.
BROWN VS. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY
30-2018-01010205-CU-PO-CJC
Oct 18, 2019
Orange County, CA
Because the fraudulent-concealment claim may proceed, Plaintiff's request for punitive damages is also appropriate. For these reasons, the motions are denied. Event ID: 2871942 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: 12 Page: 1
LAUGHLIN VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC
37-2021-00041704-CU-BC-CTL
Feb 03, 2023
San Diego County, CA
Plaintiff’s allegations show she is alleging fraudulent concealment.
HERRICK VS DELANGRE
30-2019-01080321
Feb 10, 2020
Orange County, CA
First Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment. Defendants’ demurrer to the first cause of action is overruled. The SAC states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for fraudulent concealment. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 748 [elements of fraudulent concealment]; SAC, ¶¶ 72, 76, 78-79, 82, 84, 86-87, 90. 95, 97-98, 101, 104, 106-107, 110, 113, 115-116, 119.) Second Cause of Action for Fraudulent Misrepresentation. Defendants’ demurrer to the second cause of action is overruled.
TORRES VS. BROWN
30-2017-00938484-CU-MC-CJC
Dec 17, 2018
Orange County, CA
The FAC seeks punitive damages in connection with the fraudulent concealment claim. In light of the Courts ruling on the Demurrers regarding the sufficiency of the fraudulent concealment allegations, the Court GRANTS the Motions with 20 days leave to amend. Francini is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
LEOBARDO SEGURA-MEZA, ET AL. VS AGOURA HILLS MARBLE AND GRANITE, INC., ET AL.
22STCV38729
Oct 31, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Therefore, the economic loss rule does not bar Plaintiffs’ fraudulent concealment cause of action. Conclusion Defendant’s demurrer to the sixth cause of action for fraudulent concealment is OVERRULED. Motion To Strike Meet and Confer The Declaration of Attorney Linda R. Echegary demonstrates that the meet-and-confer requirement of CCP § 435.5 was satisfied.
ARMANDO ALVAREZ, ET AL. VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC
20STCV47837
Jul 12, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Fifth Cause of Action—Fraudulent Concealment, Seventh Cause of Action—Fraudulent Concealment, Eighth Cause of Action—Fraudulent Concealment, Ninth Cause of Action—Fraudulent Concealment and Eighteenth Cause of Action—Concealment Defendant argues that these causes of action fail to allege all elements of such causes of action.
XUE ZHONG LIU ET AL VS. YU XIN AN
EC064414
Oct 28, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
American Honda Motor Co Inc CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Breach of Contract/Warranty EVENT TYPE: Demurrer (CLM) to the Fourth Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment in Plaintiffs Complaint MOVING PARTY: American Honda Motor Co Inc CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment in Plaintiffs Complaint, Declaration of Ian G Schuler, Request for Judicial Notice, Proposed Order
2022-00563965
May 27, 2022
Ventura County, CA
But a cause of action for fraudulent concealment requires actual knowledge, and constructive knowledge is insufficient. CACI 1901; Assilzadeh v. California Federal Bank (2000) 82 Cal. App. 4th 399, 410; San Diego Hospice v. County of San Diego (1995) 31 Cal. App. 4th 1048, 1055-56. Simply put, you can’t fraudulently conceal a fact you’re not aware of. Thus, defendants have shown there is no triable issue as to their liability for fraudulent concealment.
WATERS VS. PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
30-2018-01017411
Dec 04, 2020
Orange County, CA
The motion is based on plaintiffs' discovery of evidence they argue supports a fraudulent concealment claim. First, defendants have established that they will be prejudiced by the granting of this motion as the depositions of the plaintiffs will have to be re-taken.
CLAUDIA GARCIA VS. BAELLO
37-2016-00040500-CU-OR-NC
Jul 26, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Real Property
other
The motion to strike ¶ 142, page 23:15- ¶ 152, p. 24:21 re: the cause of action for fraudulent concealment and ¶ 6 at Page 25:1 re: punitive damages is DENIED. Defendant is ordered to answer the Complaint within 20 days. DISCUSSION: Demurrer Meet and Confer The Declaration of Anthony S. Thomas reflects that the meet and confer requirement set forth in CCP § 430.41 was satisfied. Discussion: 1. Fourth Cause of Action (Fraudulent Concealment).
GLADIS GUZMAN ET AL VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC
BC713537
Oct 05, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
AGUILERA VS. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.
30-2019-01074264
Jul 09, 2020
Orange County, CA
DISCUSSION Defendant argues Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pleaded their fraudulent concealment claim.
DAVID FERRELL, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS RICHARD LOPEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.
23STCV19340
Mar 27, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant’s demurrer to the first (battery), third (intentional infliction of emotional distress), fourth (fraudulent concealment) and fifth (public nuisance) causes of action of plaintiff’s complaint. Demurrers sustained, with leave to amend. First cause of action for battery: This cause of action fails as plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts showing his injuries were caused by an intended act of defendants.
BROWN VS. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY
30-2018-01010205-CU-PO-CJC
May 17, 2019
Orange County, CA
Therefore, the fraudulent concealment claim fails. Plaintiff provides an example of a federal court case, Falk v. General Motors Corp. (2007) 496 F.Supp.2d 1088 (Falk), in which the court found that a claim for fraudulent concealment against GM was sufficiently pleaded.
LOPEZ VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC
CVRI2101832
Aug 03, 2021
Riverside County, CA
As to the sixth cause of action for fraudulent concealment, Defendants argue Plaintiffs have not plead with sufficient particularity the facts to support fraudulent concealment.
LEIDER VS FCA US LLC
37-2019-00040844-CU-BC-CTL
Jan 02, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
The Seventh Amended Complaint, filed June 14, 2018, alleges causes of action for: (1) common count for money lent; (2) conversion; (3) fraudulent concealment; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) fraudulent concealment; (6) fraudulent concealment; (7) fraudulent concealment; (8) breach of fiduciary duty; (9) fraudulent concealment; (10) breach of fiduciary duty; (11) quiet title; (12) quiet title; (13) quiet title; (14) constructive trust; (15) conversion; (16) conversion; (17) common count for money lent; and
XUE ZHONG LIU ET AL VS. YU XIN AN
EC064414
Jan 18, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
In opposition, plaintiffs argue that they have properly pled a cause of action for fraudulent concealment and that it complies with the heightened pleading standard for fraud. In reply, defendants reiterate their arguments. The court finds that the allegations are insufficient to constitute a cause of action for fraudulent concealment. The allegations do not show an intent to defraud or a duty to disclose defendants religious and moral beliefs.
DAVID DINH, ET AL. VS GWEN MARIA ALLEN, M.D., ET AL.
23TRCV00475
Jun 29, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Fraudulent Concealment Defendant contends Plaintiffs fourth cause of action for fraudulent concealment fails because it is not pled with specificity and does not establish Defendant had a duty to disclose. The court disagrees.
RUBISELA MARTINEZ CHAVARIN VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
23PSCV00327
May 31, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Therefore, Defendants owed a duty to disclose material defects to Plaintiffs.¿ Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs sufficiently establish the fraudulent concealment cause of action.
JESUS MARTINEZ, ET AL. VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
19STCV11843
Feb 04, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
For a cause of action for fraudulent concealment, the claim is adequately pled when “considered as a whole, provides defendants with sufficient notice of the particular claims against them.” Jones v. ConocoPhillips Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1187, 1200. Here, considering the FAC as a whole, the Court finds that Defendants are provided with sufficient notice of the fraudulent concealment claims made especially with regard to the alleged transmission defect.
AURELIO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
19STCV11119
Feb 04, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
In the seventh cause of action, plaintiff alleges fraudulent concealment.
HERRICK VS DELANGRE
30-2019-01080321
Sep 23, 2019
Orange County, CA
The relevant party from whom the information must be concealed to form the basis of a fraudulent concealment claim is Plaintiff, not Defendant’s dealerships.
JAVIER TORRES RAZO VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
19STCV07313
Jul 03, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
Plaintiff’s argument that she is entitled to the benefit of the delayed discovery or fraudulent concealment tolling of the applicable statutes of limitations is not factually or legally supportable. The alleged damage to Plaintiff’s vehicle occurred on July 28, 2016.
VARGAS VS DPEP 3, INC.
CVMV2201105
Feb 24, 2023
Riverside County, CA
damages; and (6) that defendants’ fraudulent concealment was the cause of plaintiff’s damages. ( Marketing West, Inc. v.
RUIFEN BI, ET AL. VS DOE 1, ET AL.
21STCV05532
Sep 07, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendant demurs to the claim for fraudulent concealment on several different grounds. Defendant argues the fraudulent concealment claims fails because (1) it does not contain the level of detail required to plead fraud, (2) it does not allege circumstances giving rise to a duty to disclose, and (3) it is barred by the economic loss rule.
AMEZCUA VS. MERCEDES-BENZ
MSC20-01946
Mar 08, 2021
Contra Costa County, CA
Fraudulent Concealment The elements of fraudulent concealment are: (1) the defendant must have concealed or suppressed a material fact; (2) the defendant must have been under a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff; (3) the defendant must have intentionally concealed or suppressed the fact with the intent to defraud the plaintiff; (4) the plaintiff must have been unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he did if he had known of the concealed or suppressed fact; and (5) as a result of the concealment
K & K LIMITED HOLDINGS, LLC, ET AL. VS REKHA SACHDEVA, ET AL.
21STCV00891
Jul 27, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The causes of action are: (1) Negligence; (2) Strict Liability Warning Defect; (3) Strict Liability Design Defect; (4) Fraudulent Concealment; (5) Breach of Implied Warranties; and (6) Loss of Consortium. Defendant Ollin International Inc. (Defendant) filed a demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment, and a motion to strike punitive damages and insufficient allegations. Plaintiff opposes the motions.
JAIME BLANCO MACIEL, ET AL. VS ALPHA TILE AND STONE, INC., ET AL.
23STCV12007
Dec 11, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Indeed, Plaintiffs base their fraudulent concealment claim on an argument that they have been injured because the infotainment system may fail. (FAC ¶ 80.) Under the law, Plaintiffs need not allege that the product is defective to establish a claim for fraudulent concealment, because a claim for fraudulent concealment impugns Defendants conduct . ( Khan v. Shiley Inc. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 848, 857.)
MICHELLE BERNARDINO, ET AL. VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC
22STCV18013
Sep 27, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The OVERRULES Defendant’s Demurrer to the Third Cause of Action’s count for conspiracy to commit fraudulent concealment. (The Court has previously overruled the demurrer to the count for fraudulent concealment against Defendant.)
EGLI VS JOHNSON & JOHNSON
RG20075272
Dec 13, 2021
Alameda County, CA
The OVERRULES Defendant’s Demurrer to the Third Cause of Action’s count for conspiracy to commit fraudulent concealment. (The Court has previously overruled the demurrer to the count for fraudulent concealment against Defendant.)
EGLI VS JOHNSON & JOHNSON
RG20075272
Dec 13, 2021
Alameda County, CA
Because defendant has not established that plaintiffs do not have evidence to support its cause of action for fraudulent concealment, defendant also has not established that plaintiffs do not have evidence to establish their claim for punitive damages, which is based on defendant’s alleged fraudulent concealment. (See also Declaration of Scott S. Shepardson, Exhibit D, plaintiffs’ responses to Special Interrogatory Nos. 30, 31, and 32, and Exhibit E, plaintiffs’ responses to Request for Production No. 9).
ROMAN V. FCA US, LCC, ET AL.
FCS048856
Apr 17, 2019
Solano County, CA
Demurrer to the fourth cause of action for fraudulent concealment on the ground it is not sufficiently stated is overruled. Paragraphs 68 and 71 through 72 adequately state the fraudulent concealment of pertinent facts by the seller and agent. Motion to strike attorney’s fees demand is granted. No basis for recovery of the fees is alleged in the complaint.
JOE SALEM VS WISH PROPERTIES INC. ET. AL.
EC064677
Sep 29, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
defendants fraudulent concealment was the cause of the plaintiffs damages. ( Marketing West, Inc. v.
SARAH LAPPIN VS VINAY AGGRAWAL M.D., ET AL.
21STCV06119
Dec 06, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
However, although the third cause of action in the FAC is titled Fraudulent Concealment, it appears from the language of paragraph 39 of the FAC, Plaintiffs may be attempting to plead Fraudulent Misrepresentation/Promissory Fraud. Fraudulent Misrepresentation and Fraudulent Concealment have, of course, different elements.
VAHE ALEK SAGINIAN, ET AL. VS BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL.
21GDCV01364
Jun 17, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
As analyzed above, The FAC does not allege any facts to support a claim for fraudulent concealment, and thus, Plaintiffs fail to show the exception for fraudulent concealment applies in this case. Finally, because Ontiveros’s claims are barred under the WCA, Batista’s loss of consortium claim is also barred. (Cole v.
JUAN ONTIVEROS, ET AL. VS AMERICAN RACING EQUIPMENT INC., ET AL.
20STCV25116
May 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Plaintiff contends that since this is a fraudulent concealment cause of action, less specificity is required because there are no affirmative acts at issue in this cause of action. He asserts that because of this, his fraud cause of action is sufficiently alleged. This assertion is incorrect.
CRAIN VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC
CVSW2301162
Nov 22, 2023
Riverside County, CA
Law Governing Fraudulent Concealment A duty to disclose does not exist in all circumstances. The tort of fraudulent concealment is only viable where such a duty exists.
LAUREN MEISLER VS AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
23AHCV00561
May 24, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs argue that the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) did contain an action for fraudulent concealment. However, the Fifth Cause of Action in the FAC alleged Fraudulent Concealment – Survival Claim, which became the Fourth Cause of Action in the SAC. The Third and Fourth Causes of Action in the SAC are based on very similar facts. The Third Cause of Action is based on CCP § 377.60.
ACEVEDO HERNANDEZ, ETAL VS. PATIENTS, ETAL
CVPO21-0198624
Aug 08, 2022
Shasta County, CA
Plaintiffs argue that the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) did contain an action for fraudulent concealment. However, the Fifth Cause of Action in the FAC alleged Fraudulent Concealment – Survival Claim, which became the Fourth Cause of Action in the SAC. The Third and Fourth Causes of Action in the SAC are based on very similar facts. The Third Cause of Action is based on CCP § 377.60.
ACEVEDO HERNANDEZ, ETAL VS. PATIENTS, ETAL
CVPO21-0198624
Aug 09, 2022
Shasta County, CA
Plaintiffs argue that the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) did contain an action for fraudulent concealment. However, the Fifth Cause of Action in the FAC alleged Fraudulent Concealment – Survival Claim, which became the Fourth Cause of Action in the SAC. The Third and Fourth Causes of Action in the SAC are based on very similar facts. The Third Cause of Action is based on CCP § 377.60.
ACEVEDO HERNANDEZ, ETAL VS. PATIENTS, ETAL
CVPO21-0198624
Aug 12, 2022
Shasta County, CA
Plaintiffs argue that the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) did contain an action for fraudulent concealment. However, the Fifth Cause of Action in the FAC alleged Fraudulent Concealment – Survival Claim, which became the Fourth Cause of Action in the SAC. The Third and Fourth Causes of Action in the SAC are based on very similar facts. The Third Cause of Action is based on CCP § 377.60.
ACEVEDO HERNANDEZ, ETAL VS. PATIENTS, ETAL
CVPO21-0198624
Aug 10, 2022
Shasta County, CA
The Court finds that while Plaintiff may have alleged various elements of fraudulent concealment with specificity, Plaintiff’s fraudulent concealment claim is nonetheless barred by the economic loss doctrine. Plaintiff cites no binding legal authority that extends the Supreme Court’s expressly narrow exception in Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 993, regarding affirmative misrepresentations, to fraudulent concealment claims.
GOMEZ V. VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC
30-2020-01138221
Nov 05, 2020
Orange County, CA
Plaintiffs argue that the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) did contain an action for fraudulent concealment. However, the Fifth Cause of Action in the FAC alleged Fraudulent Concealment – Survival Claim, which became the Fourth Cause of Action in the SAC. The Third and Fourth Causes of Action in the SAC are based on very similar facts. The Third Cause of Action is based on CCP § 377.60.
ACEVEDO HERNANDEZ, ETAL VS. PATIENTS, ETAL
CVPO21-0198624
Aug 06, 2022
Shasta County, CA
Plaintiffs argue that the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) did contain an action for fraudulent concealment. However, the Fifth Cause of Action in the FAC alleged Fraudulent Concealment – Survival Claim, which became the Fourth Cause of Action in the SAC. The Third and Fourth Causes of Action in the SAC are based on very similar facts. The Third Cause of Action is based on CCP § 377.60.
ACEVEDO HERNANDEZ, ETAL VS. PATIENTS, ETAL
CVPO21-0198624
Aug 11, 2022
Shasta County, CA
Plaintiffs argue that the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) did contain an action for fraudulent concealment. However, the Fifth Cause of Action in the FAC alleged Fraudulent Concealment – Survival Claim, which became the Fourth Cause of Action in the SAC. The Third and Fourth Causes of Action in the SAC are based on very similar facts. The Third Cause of Action is based on CCP § 377.60.
ACEVEDO HERNANDEZ, ETAL VS. PATIENTS, ETAL
CVPO21-0198624
Aug 07, 2022
Shasta County, CA
This is sufficient to state a claim for fraudulent concealment. Defendants demurrer is OVERRULED. Defendants motion to strike is DENIED.
RODOLFO GARCIA-ROSAS, ET AL. VS ARCHITECTURAL SURFACES, INC., ET AL.
22STCV39957
Oct 25, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The Demurrer to the Fraudulent Concealment Cause of Action The Courts lengthy discussion in its prior order concerning the requirements for pleading fraudulent concealment are also incorporated by reference: The demurrer to the original fraudulent concealment cause of action was sustained because the facts alleged do not give rise to a duty to disclose.
MARTIN TOKICH VS ANDREW M. DANG, ET AL.
22AHCV01417
Sep 19, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
While less particularity is required for allegations of fraudulent concealment ( Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc.¿ (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384-1385), it is unclear how Ford concealed such information or that Plaintiffs vehicle actually suffered the alleged Transmissions Defect. Lastly, Defendant Ford argues the economic loss rule bars plaintiffs fraudulent concealment claim.
BANI SHAHBAZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.
23VECV03921
Nov 14, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The relevant party from whom the information must be concealed to form the basis of a fraudulent concealment claim is Plaintiff, not Defendant’s dealerships.
FELIPE GONZALEZ VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
19STCV13190
Oct 10, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
Breach
Because this cause of action is not adequately pleaded, the Court need not reach any other issues raised in the demurrer though notes that the Economic Loss Rule does not bar this claim for fraudulent concealment. (Robinson Helicopter, Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal. 4th 979, 991, 993.)
COLLINS VS FCA US LLC
PSC2003941
Jan 29, 2021
Riverside County, CA
There are allegations that appear to indicate the cause of action is for fraudulent concealment. However, there are allegations that indicate this is a fraudulent misrepresentation cause of action. Specifically, Plaintiffs generically argues that Defendant made unidentified representations with the intent of inducing reliance from Plaintiffs. (Complaint, ¶ 43.)
OLGUIN VS DESTEFANO
RIC1814170
Nov 07, 2018
Riverside County, CA
The Cross-Defendants' Demurrer to the First Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment is sustained without leave to amend pursuant to C.C.P. ? 430.10(e). To plead a cause of action for fraudulent concealment, the Cross-Complainants must allege that the Cross-Defendants were in a fiduciary relationship with the Cross-Complainants. Roddenberry v. Roddenberry (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 634, 665-66; Restatment.3d, Agency ? 8.01.
SERGEY KHOLOPOV ET AL VS. IRINA LITVAK ET AL
CGC14539654
Oct 22, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
On June 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed a complaint against AMR alleging willful misconduct, negligence, fraudulent concealment, constructive fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, medical battery, and wrongful death. Plaintiff has alleged a cause of action against AMR for (1) willful misconduct, (2) negligence, (3) fraudulent concealment, (4) constructive fraud, (5) breach of fiduciary duty, (6) fraud, (7) medical battery and (8) wrongful death.
MSC21-01140
Dec 15, 2023
Contra Costa County, CA
Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) On October 22, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their complaint asserting three causes of action: (1) fraudulent concealment against Defendants; (2) fraudulent concealment against Defendant Walton Halad Company Two, LLC only; and (3) declaratory relief against Defendants. On December 31, 2020, Defendants filed the instant special motion to strike Plaintiffs’ entire complaint.
WILLIE F MCMULLEN, JR., ET AL. VS HDSI MANAGEMENT, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV40557
Apr 06, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Accordingly, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged all the elements of fraudulent concealment cause of action. Therefore the demurrer to the fraudulent concealment cause of action is OVERRULED. Defendants to give notice. Future Hearings: MSC: 1/24/20 Jury Trial: 2/24/20
MACH V. LE
30-2018-01039033-CU-FR-CJC
Sep 05, 2019
Orange County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.