What is fraudulent concealment?

Useful Resources for Fraudulent Concealment

Rulings on Fraudulent Concealment

1-25 of 2233 results

HUITT-LOPEZ VS. HILTON HOTELS

The SAC asserts causes of action for (1) battery, (2) negligence, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4) fraudulent concealment, and (5) public nuisance. Bug Zappers demurs to the causes of action for fraudulent concealment and public nuisance. The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend as to the fraudulent concealment cause of action, but overruled as to the public nuisance cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

HALLAM VS. MICHELI

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).).

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2017

MARIA DE JESUS DOMINGUEZ VS DOES 1 THROUGH 100

’s fraudulent concealment was the cause of plaintiff’s damages.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

OROZCO VS. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2019

BANK OF AMERICA,N.A. VS ARNOLD D. SCHRAGER

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)).

  • Hearing

    Mar 07, 2019

XUE ZHONG LIU ET AL VS. YU XIN AN

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

MARIA DE JESUS DOMINGUEZ VS DOES 1 THROUGH 100

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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

CARON VS. FLETCHER JONES MOTOR CARS INC.

The mere failure to disclose evidence does not constitute fraudulent concealment. (See Mark K. v. Roman Catholic Archbishop (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 603, 606-613; see also Rita M. v. Roman Catholic Archbishop (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1453, 1460 [“ ‘The doctrine of fraudulent concealment does not come into play ... if a plaintiff is on notice of a potential claim.’ ”].)

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2017

KATHLEEN PETREE VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2016

10880 WILSHIRE, LLC, ET AL. VS THE CALIFORNIAN ON WILSHIRE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

BROADWAY MICHELSON LLC VS. CDG BUILDERS INC.

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 21, 2019

PRIVATE CLUB MARKETING INCORPORATED VS. BASS

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].)

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2017

PRODIGAL SUN, LLC VS. SUJA LIFE LLC

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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

XUE ZHONG LIU ET AL VS. YU XIN AN

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.

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANA RIVAS ET AL VS GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ ET AL

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.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PSC 1602890

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.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2016

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

JEFFERSON CHRISMAN VS. HOWARD LEE ET AL

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)

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2018

TRUJILLO V. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2019

MARK ENGLE VS. ROYAL BUSINESS BANK

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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LEIDER VS FCA US LLC

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 02, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JESUS MARTINEZ, ET AL. VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

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.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

AURELIO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

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.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BREITENBACH VS EIDE

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 23, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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.