What is fraudulent concealment?

Useful Resources for Fraudulent Concealment

Recent Rulings on Fraudulent Concealment

26-50 of 2245 results

NICOLE BRAZIER VS. ROBERT DOUGLAS FREY MD

The Court OVERRULES the general demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action (fraudulent concealment). The essential elements of fraud are: "(1) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (2) knowledge of falsity (scienter); (3) intent to defraud (i.e., to induce reliance); (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage." (Molko v. Holy Spirit Ass'n. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1108, 252 Cal.Rptr. 122, 762 P.2d 46.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

JEFFREY RUBIN VS CITY OF CALABASAS, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

Code § 1090; Fraudulent Concealment; and Unfair Competition. On September 25, 2020, Defendant Shapiro filed an Anti-SLAPP currently set for hearing on February 1, 2021. On October 5, 2020, Defendant City of Calabasas (hereinafter the “City”) filed a Demurrer with Motion to Strike currently set for hearing on February 8, 2021. On October 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend FAC currently set for hearing on February 16, 2021.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MICHAEL LEVINE, ET AL. VS MONTALBA ARCHITECTS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Fraudulent concealment is also a type of fraud and deceit.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

BEATRIZ VALDEZ ET AL VS DOES 1 TO 200

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on February 7, 2017, and a FAC on December 24, 2019, alleging six causes of action: Negligence Strict Liability — Failure to Warn Strict Liability — Design Defect Fraudulent Concealment Breach of Implied Warranties Loss of Consortium On December 5, 2019, this Court sustained Defendant Sasol Chemicals (USA) LLC, successor-in-interest to Sasol North America Inc. (Doe 3) (“Sasol”)’s Demurrer to the Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

ERICK ALFRED RUBALCAVA, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.

Plaintiffs appear to group equitable tolling, equitable estoppel, and fraudulent concealment tolling. (Complaint ¶¶83-86.) To allege fraudulent concealment tolling, a plaintiff must allege facts that show: (1) the time and manner of the discovery; (2) that plaintiff was not at fault for failing to discover the fraud or had no actual presumptive knowledge of facts sufficient to put him on inquiry; and (3) the substantive elements of fraud. (Community Cause v. Boatwright (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 888, 900.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

PINNACLE ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC. VS ALEC ESKANDRIAN

V. 5the cause of action for Fraudulent Concealment—OVERRULE “A deceit, within the meaning of the last section, is either:…3. The suppression of a fact, by one who is bound to disclose it, or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact.” CCP §1710(3).

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BEATRIZ VALDEZ ET AL VS DOES 1 TO 200

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on February 7, 2017, and a FAC on December 24, 2019, alleging six causes of action: Negligence Strict Liability — Failure to Warn Strict Liability — Design Defect Fraudulent Concealment Breach of Implied Warranties Loss of Consortium On December 5, 2019, this Court sustained Defendant Sasol Chemicals (USA) LLC, successor-in-interest to Sasol North America Inc. (Doe 3) (“Sasol”)’s Demurrer to the Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

STEPHEN ALAN GREEN VS AXIALL CORPORATION, ET AL

For the reasons stated in connection with Axiall’s MSA of the 5th c/a for fraudulent concealment, Dow’s MSA of this claim is also DENIED. Defendant Dow also asserts the fraudulent concealment claim fails, because Plaintiff did not read any labels, warnings or product literature.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOSEFA URIOSTEGUI VS AMERICAN IRON & METAL, ET AL.

The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges the following causes of action: (1) General Negligence; (2) Strict Liability—Warning Defect; (3) Strict Liability—Design Defect; (4) Fraudulent Concealment; and (5) Breach of Implied Warranties. Defendants Ashland LLC (“Ashland”) and LTS Research Laboratories, Inc. (“LTS”) each move for summary judgment. Plaintiff opposes both motions. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Ashland’s motion and grants LTS’s motion.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MIGUEL OSEGUERA ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.

While less particularity is required for allegations of fraudulent concealment, Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations that Defendant concealed information relating to the CVT defect are insufficient. Plaintiffs fails to allege any fats relating to the representations relied on, who made them, and when they were made in support of her fraudulent concealment cause of action. Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations are insufficient.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

BENJAMIN CALDERON, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

Plaintiffs allege sufficient facts to allege a fraudulent concealment claim. The relevant allegations are as follows: the FAC alleges a defect in the subject vehicle, namely the Totally Integrated Power Module (“TIPM”) defect and defects relating to the vehicle’s power distribution system and the rear sliding door.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

LUCKY'S TWO-WAY RADIOS, INC. ET AL VS FRANK J. CANNATA

The Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) was filed on August 7, 2020, alleging: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Conversion; (3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (4) Fraud and Fraudulent Concealment; (5) Specific Performance; and (6) Permanent Injunction On March 29, 2019, the court granted Cannata’s motion for leave to file a cross-complaint. Cannata filed the first amended cross-complaint against Plaintiffs Lucky’s Two-Way Radios, Inc. and Buddy Corporation on April 10, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DESALVO VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

Plaintiffs have not cited any authority establishing that a duty to disclose can exist without a transactional relationship for the purpose of fraudulent concealment claims.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

CROWE VS SCRIPPS MERCY HOSPITAL CHULA VISTA

Scripps has not persuaded the Court that the demurrer to the second cause of action for fraudulent concealment fails to allege sufficient facts. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 748; Lazar v. Sup. Ct. (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645; SAC, at ¶¶ 19, 26, 32-38.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

NEDA NOURANI VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

The SAC does not allege facts supporting the doctrines of fraudulent concealment and equitable estoppel. Plaintiff only alleges in conclusory fashion that Defendant fraudulently concealed information. Furthermore, the SAC is devoid of facts that “plaintiff was not at fault for failing to discover it or had no actual or presumptive knowledge of facts sufficient to put [her] on inquiry.” (Community Cause v. Boatwright (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 888, 900.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

SUPERIOR COURT VS. QUANERGY SYSTEMS

Plaintiff seeks to add a cause of action for fraudulent concealment based on recently discovered information. He seeks to substitute one Doe defendant with the name of Louay Eldada who was the Chief Executive Officer of the defendant at the time of the events in question. Defendant contends that the proposed amendment is time-barred by Code of Civil Procedure, § 338. III. Analysis.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

MATTHEWS VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

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

    Jan 07, 2021

ISABEL BERG, ET AL. VS TUTTLE CLICK, INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION., ET AL.

Motion Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings on grounds that (1) the economic loss rule bars Plaintiffs’ fraudulent concealment claim and (2) Plaintiffs fail to state sufficient allegations to support a fraud claim. Plaintiffs oppose each ground. Defendants have replied. “Economic loss” damages consist of “damages for inadequate value, costs of repair and replacement of the defective product or consequent loss of profits – without any claim of personal injury or damages to other property.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

RAUL VARGAS, JR. VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION

For Plaintiff to allege actionable concealment, the duty to disclose must have existed during the period of the fraudulent concealment.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JEFF ANTHONY VS IRON MOUNTAIN, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiffs fail to allege sufficient facts to allege a fraudulent concealment claim. The relevant allegations are as follows: the Complaint alleges a defect in the subject vehicle, namely the “Theta II” 2.4L Turbo GDI engine defect, which exposes the engine to catastrophic failure.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ALEXANDRIA REAL ESTATE EQUITIES, INC., ET AL. VS STEVEN MARCUS, ET AL.

Additionally, Cross-Defendants contend that both causes of action fail because they fail to allege how Steven’s alleged damages were the result of Cross-Defendants’ misrepresentations and/or fraudulent concealment. (Id.) In opposition, Steven contends that the sixth and seventh causes of action are sufficiently pled because the statute of limitations did not begin to run until 2019, when he had to spend time and money to defend against the Complaint. (Opposition, 8-9.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

JAQUAN BARNETT VS WBN HOME DESIGN INC, ET AL.

Issue No.5: Sixth Cause of Action To state a cause of action for fraudulent concealment, a plaintiff must plead the following elements: (1) concealment or suppression of a material fact; (2) the defendant was under a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff; (3) the defendant 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

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

VANESSA RAMIREZ, ET AL. VS BN DEALERSHIP I, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY DBA WEST VALLEY CHRYSLER JEEP, ET AL.

FCA argues that the third cause of action for fraudulent concealment fails under the economic loss rule. (Demurrer at pp. 5–7.) Simply stated, the economic loss rule provides: Where a purchaser's expectations in a sale are frustrated because the product he bought is not working properly, his remedy is said to be in contract alone, for he has suffered only ‘economic’ losses. . . .

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SIMMONS V. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.

Plaintiff also argues that the fraudulent concealment of defects is independent of any warranty. (Opp’n p. 12:4-12.) Unlike Robinson, where the provision of “false certificates of conformance” was readily found to be “independent” from the “contract loss” of “nonconforming clutches,” here, the alleged failure of Defendant to disclose the “engine defects” completely overlaps what is sought by a contract/warranty remedy—damages for the “nonconforming engine.”

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2021

RICHARD PECH VS AFSHIN MOGHAVEM, ET AL.

., and Prodigy Brands LLC (collectively “the Moghavem Defendants”) alleging causes of action for (1) Fraudulent Concealment, (2) Fraudulent False Promise, (3) Interference with Contract, (4) Breach of Contract, and (5) Quantum Meruit. On June 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed two Doe amendments naming Stephen N. Doniger as Doe 1 and Scott Alan Burroughs as Doe 2.

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 90     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.