What is fraudulent concealment?

Useful Resources for Fraudulent Concealment

Recent Rulings on Fraudulent Concealment

JENNY MARCHICK VS KENYA REEVES-COSTA, ET AL.

The Court finds that in its order on Defendants’ demurrer to the complaint, the Court did not give Plaintiff permission to add a fraudulent concealment cause of action and only granted Plaintiff leave to amend as to the: (1) breach of written contract cause of action; and (2) the fraud cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Plaintiff’s reliance on Jones is also misplaced, as Jones analyzed whether demurrers to a fraudulent concealment claim in a toxic tort action were properly sustained. Thus, Jones is procedurally inapplicable to this action. Viewing the evidence submitted in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the court finds that there is no triable issue of material fact with respect to the sixth cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

COLUMBIA ENTERPRISES, LLC VS T.M. COBB COMPANY

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

JESSE DANIELS VS NORTHSTAR SOURCING GROUP LLC ET AL

Healthcare Partners Medical Group, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 124, 162, noting that one of the requisite elements of a fraudulent concealment cause of action is defendant’s duty to disclose the material facts to plaintiff. ) Accordingly, his fraud in the inducement cause of action fails. It is so ordered. Dated: January , 2021 Hon. Jon R.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

XIN ZHANG ET AL VS CALIFORNIA INVESTMENT IMMIGRATION FUND LL

The complaint, filed September 4, 2018 alleges causes of action for: (1) intentional misrepresentation; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) fraudulent concealment; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (5) breach of fiduciary duty; (6) conversion; (7) IIED; (8) NIED; (9) breach of written agreement; (10) professional negligence (legal malpractice); (11) unjust enrichment; and (12) common count (money had and received). B.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GLOGER V. SANTA ANA PROPCO LLC

Seventh Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment The seventh cause of action is for fraudulent concealment. (FAC, at pp. 22-23.) “In California, fraud must be pled specifically; general and conclusory allegations do not suffice.” (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645 [citing Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 74].) “This particularity requirement necessitates pleading facts which 'show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.” (Lazar v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

SKANSKA USA CIVIL WEST CALIFORNIA DISTRICT, INC. V. SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

As to the fourth cause of action for fraudulent concealment, it does not appear there is a relationship between HDR and Skanska that would give rise to a duty of disclosure on Skanska’s part. Thus, no cause of action has been stated here. (See Limandri v. Judkins (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 326, 336-337.) According to the amended cross-complaint, SANDAG as the owner transacted with HDR directly for the engineering services on the project. SANDAG also contracted with Skanska to act as the contractor.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

MAHER MEMARZADEH VS LOTTIE COHEN ET AL

In reply, Defendants argue that Cohen’s litigation decisions, tactics, and arguments in the underlying case are not material facts that could be concealed for purposes of a cause of action for fraudulent concealment. The court agrees. The court finds that the fourth cause of action for fraud (fraudulent concealment) fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Prov., § 430.10, subd. (e).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

JOSEFA URIOSTEGUI VS AMERICAN IRON & METAL, ET AL.

The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges these 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 CRC Industries, Inc. and Coburn Technologies, Inc. separately move for summary judgment. Plaintiff opposes both motions. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies both motions.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PAUL WARGO, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.

To allege equitable tolling by fraudulent concealment, 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; See also Sagehorn v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

RAMIRO PEREZ MIRANDA, ET AL. VS LOS ANGELES MOTOR CARS INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Defendants argue that the fourth cause of action for fraudulent concealment is barred by the economic loss rule. (Motion at pp. 4–7.) 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 14, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

B&D FARMS, INC. V. GINGER L. MANKINS, ET AL.

The First Cause of Action - Fraudulent Concealment & Conspiracy Mark argues that the FAC fails to allege with specificity the facts necessary to support a cause of action for fraudulent concealment. McKinsey responds that the FAC seeks to impose liability on Mark as a co-conspirator of Ginger, and as such, it need only set forth facts showing that Ginger’s conduct meets the elements necessary to plead fraud.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

SKANSKA USA CIVIL WEST CALIFORNIA DISTRICT, INC. V. SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

As to the fourth cause of action for fraudulent concealment, it does not appear there is a relationship between HDR and Skanska that would give rise to a duty of disclosure on Skanska’s part. Thus, no cause of action has been stated here. (See Limandri v. Judkins (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 326, 336-337.) According to the amended cross-complaint, SANDAG as the owner transacted with HDR directly for the engineering services on the project. SANDAG also contracted with Skanska to act as the contractor.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

YONG HWAN KIM ET AL VS CHRISTINE Y KIM ET AL

Then, on February 27, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, alleging five (5) causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty; fraudulent concealment/misrepresentation; negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract; and recission. On March 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a second lawsuit (Case No. BC655731) against Defendants Simco Construction (“Simco”) and Namu Development, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.