What is fraudulent concealment?

Useful Resources for Fraudulent Concealment

Recent Rulings on Fraudulent Concealment

176-200 of 2234 results

FLORES VS FCA US LLC

ConocoPhillips Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1187, 1198, internal marks omitted (finding trial court improperly sustained demurrers as plaintiffs adequately alleged a cause of action for fraudulent concealment).

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

FLORES VS FCA US LLC

ConocoPhillips Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1187, 1198, internal marks omitted (finding trial court improperly sustained demurrers as plaintiffs adequately alleged a cause of action for fraudulent concealment).

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

PATEL M.D. VS JELD-WEN, INC

The equitable tolling doctrine, similar to the delayed discovery rule, focuses on a plaintiff's excusable failure to discover the fraud or misconduct by the defendant by which "defendant’s fraudulent concealment of his wrongdoing has resulted in the plaintiff being ignorant of his cause of action, despite the exercise of reasonable diligence." (Sagehorn v. Engle (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 452, 460, 461.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

VAHIK AMERIAN VS GRIGOR SARKISSIAN D D S ET AL

In his sixth cause of action for fraudulent concealment, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants concealed from him the fact that Aslanian was an unlicensed dental professional and that the treatment and care received by him would not be performed by licensed dental professionals. (Compl. ¶ 39.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

BARBARA FRIEND VS PAC PROPERTIES ET AL

Issue No. 9: “Plaintiff’s claim for fraudulent concealment has no merit because Plaintiff has no evidence, and cannot obtain evidence, that Defendants intentionally failed to disclose certain facts to Plaintiff, that Defendants intended to deceive Plaintiff by concealing the facts, or that Plaintiff would have behaved differently had any omitted information been disclosed.”

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

LUIS RAMIREZ DIAZ, ET AL. VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC

The elements of 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 of fact.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

CAMERON VS. FCA US, LLC

The Court also finds the FAC fails to adequately allege facts supporting a tolling of the statute of limitations based on delay discovery, fraudulent concealment, or the repair doctrine. And, last, the Court finds this cause of action as pled is barred by the Economic Loss Rule as the FAC pleads purely only economic loss. (FAC, ¶ 50.) Moving Party is to give notice. (2) MOTION TO STRIKE is MOOT given the Court’s ruling on demurrer. Moving Party is to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

LUIS RAMIREZ DIAZ, ET AL. VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC

The elements of 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 of fact.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

STEVE BECKER VS. COMFY DENTAL GROUP AND ORTHODONTICS

The problem here is that plaintiff alleges the same facts concerning defendants' intentional fraudulent concealment both on information and belief and without that qualifier. There are insufficient facts stated supporting the information and belief allegations about defendants' alleged intentional concealment of their own malpractice. Thus, this case is distinguishable from that presented in Carney v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

LAW OFFICES OF JACOB EMRANI, APC VS GREAT WEST CASUALTY COMPANY, ET AL.

The SAC asserts causes of action for: Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage (against Great West Casualty Company); Constructive Trust (against Olivo and Maalik); Breach of Contract, Quantum Meruit, and Unjust Enrichment (against Maalik); Breach of Fiduciary Duty (against Olivo); Declaratory Relief (against Olivo and Maalik); Conversion (against Olivo); Fraudulent Concealment; Intentional Misrepresentation; and Negligent Misrepresentation.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

CYNTHIA DIAZ VS PHC SERVICE CO., LLC, ET AL.

The SAXC asserts causes of action for (1) conversion, (2) money had and received, (3) constructive trust, (4) unjust enrichment, and (5) fraudulent concealment. The SAXC alleges in pertinent part as follows. From April 2018 to May 2019, Diaz worked as a trimming specialist at PHC. On October 23, 2018, Diaz’s supervisor informed her that PHC was giving her a pay increase from $14 per hour $15 per hour.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MANUEL MICHAEL TERRAZAS VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT MATHEW ENTERPRISE, INC. dba STONERIDGE CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION Background Plaintiff Manuel Michael Terrazas (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants FCA US, LLC (“FCA”), and Stoneridge Chrysler Jeep Dodge(“Stoneridge”) (jointly, “Defendants”) on February 14, 2020, alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and a claim for fraudulent concealment.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

MARVIN TARNOL, ET AL. VS UNITED FABRICARE SUPPLY, INC.

The operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) states six causes of action for: 1) negligence; 2) strict liability – failure to warn; 3) strict liability – design defect; 4) fraudulent concealment; 5) breach of implied warranties; and 6) loss of consortium. The SAC alleges that Marvin worked at dry cleaning facilities from 1950 through 1980. Plaintiff was diagnosed with bladder cancer in 2017.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

BAR BAKERS, LLC VS CREATIVE FLAVOR CONCEPTS, INC.

This laid the foundation to establish fraudulent concealment (and a duty) from the buying shareholder for his failure to disclose a material fact. (See Persson v. Smart Inventions, Inc. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1165.) Here, a similar relation is not presently alleged or apparent. This fraud count requires clarification. Demurrer to 7th coa for Interference with Contractual Relations Overruled.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

KUCICH VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA INC

Fraudulent Concealment/Tolling/Estoppel Plaintiff labels this as both tolling and estoppel. (FAC ¶ 76-100.) However, the issue here is tolling by fraudulent concealment. “The doctrine of fraudulent concealment, which is judicially created [citations], limits the typical statute of limitations. ‘[T]he defendant's fraud in concealing a cause of action against him tolls the applicable statute of limitations....” [Citations.]

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

NICOLE BRAZIER VS. ROBERT DOUGLAS FREY MD

(4) The Court SUSTAINS the general demurrer to the Fifth Cause of Action for fraudulent concealment WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. The allegations in the FAC fall far short of the specificity required to state a cause of action for fraud as opposed to a failure to obtain plaintiff's informed consent to the rhizotomy procedure. (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 72-73, 269 Cal.Rptr. 337.) This defect theoretically can be cured by amendment, so the Court permits plaintiff leave to amend accordingly.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

NICOLE BRAZIER VS. ROBERT DOUGLAS FREY MD

(4) The Court SUSTAINS the general demurrer to the Fifth Cause of Action for fraudulent concealment WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. The allegations in the FAC fall far short of the specificity required to state a cause of action for fraud as opposed to a failure to obtain plaintiff's informed consent to the rhizotomy procedure. (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 72-73, 269 Cal.Rptr. 337.) This defect theoretically can be cured by amendment, so the Court permits plaintiff leave to amend accordingly.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY VS DEVONSHIRE SILVER PLAZA L

Mehta and Gupta crossclaimed against DSP “alleging breach of contract, fraudulent concealment of the possible existence of a dry cleaners on the property some years before, and claimed that [DSP’s] actions caused [Mehta] to lose the benefits of an IRS Section 1031 tax deferred exchange.” (Id. at *2.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

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

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOSE RIZO VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

For this reason, Plaintiff’s fraudulent concealment claim is barred by the economic loss rule. The weight of authority within the Ninth Circuit concurs with this result. (See, e.g., Sloan v. General Motors LLC (N.D. Cal., Apr. 23, 2020, No. 16-CV-07244-EMC) 2020 WL 1955643, at *23-*24 (Judge Chen) (collecting cases); Mosqueda v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (C.D. Cal., Mar. 6, 2020, No. SACV19839MWFMAAX) 2020 WL 1698710, at *13; Hsieh v. FCA US LLC (S.D.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

MARY T MUNOZ, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC, ET AL.

concealment rule, equitable estoppel, the repair rule, and/or class action tolling (FAC ¶47); The statutes of limitations applicable to Plaintiffs’ claims were tolled by the filing of the Aguilar v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

HINSON VS. BRANDYBERRY

For fraudulent concealment to be actionable, defendant must have been under a duty to disclose the facts to plaintiff. (E.g., Stevens v. Sup.Ct. (St. Francis Med. Ctr.) (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 605, 609-610,—hospital had duty to disclose lack of required supervision and qualification of medical staff to patient and failure to do so was actionable.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

CHAD JENSEN, ET AL. VS CITY OF POMONA, ET AL.

These include statutory exceptions such as: 1) physical assault by the employer; 2) aggravation of injury by the employer’s fraudulent concealment; 3) products liability cases, 4) power press guards; and 5) situations in which the employer is uninsured. (See Lab. Code §§ 3602, 3706, 4553.) Here, the conduct alleged falls within general management of personnel. Nor does the FAC plead an exception to the exclusivity rule.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ARTURO SANCHEZ, ET AL. VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

The Court notes that even if Plaintiffs were able to allege any such affirmative representations with factual specificity, it would not cure their failure to allege facts suggesting Defendant had knowledge of the defect at the time the statements were made such that any omission from those statements would constitute fraudulent concealment.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

NKLOSURES, INC. ARCHITECTS FKA NKLOSURES, INC. VS AVALON LODGING, LLC DBA BEST WESTERN PREMIER #05747

The complaint, filed July 16, 2020, alleges causes of action for: (1) conversion; (2) fraudulent concealment; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) treble damages pursuant to Penal Code, §496(c); and (5) unfair business practices pursuant to Business & Professions Code, §17200. B. Motion on Calendar On September 11, 2020, Best Western International, Inc. (“BWI”) filed a motion to quash service of the summons and complaint. On October 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition brief.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • 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.