What is fraudulent misrepresentation?

Useful Rulings on Fraudulent Misrepresentation

Recent Rulings on Fraudulent Misrepresentation

YANG NAM KIM VS KOREA SENIOR CITIZENS MUTUAL CLUB, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Second Cause of Action: Contractual Fraud To plead a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must plead: (1) a false representation, (2) knowledge of falsity (scienter), (3) intent to defraud (i.e., to induce reliance), (4) justifiable reliance, and (5) resulting damage. (Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1226, 1239.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MEDS DIRECT RX OF NY LLC ET AL VS NOAH JUSSIM ET AL

The amendments to the fraudulent misrepresentation also do not add the required information as to Hinshaw. (See id. at ¶¶ 152-189.)

  • Hearing

MARIA DEL CARMEN VALDOVINOS ROSALES, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

“To establish a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, the plaintiff must prove: ‘(1) the defendant represented to the plaintiff that an important fact was true; (2) that representation was false; (3) the defendant knew that the representation was false when the defendant made it, or the defendant made the representation recklessly and without regard for its truth; (4) the defendant intended that the plaintiff rely on the representation; (5) the plaintiff reasonably relied on the representation; (6) the plaintiff

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

D'ANDRE HUMES, ET AL. VS MARCILLA HAYSLETT, ET AL.

On March 16, 2018, Plaintiffs in pro per filed a complaint for Breach of Contract: Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, and Intentional infliction of Emotional Distress. On April 6, 2018, counsel for Plaintiffs substituted into the case.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

ALLEN V BIG WOOD BUILDERS INC HEARING RE: DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT OF MICHAEL ALLEN BY BIG WOOD BUILDERS INC, DAVID ALLEN WOOD

The 1st cause of action for promissory fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation is not adequately pleaded as to any defendant. The elements of fraud, which give rise to a tort action for deceit, are (1) misrepresentation; (2) knowledge of falsity; (3) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage, and each element must be alleged with particularity.

  • Hearing

CAIN V. MENDONSA

.) - Fraud Cause of Action “The elements of the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation are: (1) representation; (2) falsity; (3) knowledge of falsity; (4) intent to deceive; and (5) reliance and resulting damages (causation). (Younan v. Equifax Inc. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 498, 512, 169 Cal.Rptr. 478; Civ.Code, § 1709.)

  • Hearing

KHALED J. AL-SABAH VS VICTORINO NOVAL

This purchase was based on the fraudulent misrepresentation that [Plaintiff Jarrah Al-Sabah] could not acquire title to the Westholme Property because he did not have a Social Security Number. Instead, Defendants suggested that title be held by the Trustee of the Rexford Trust ostensibly for the benefit of [Plaintiff Jarrah Al-Sabah]. However, Defendants have refused to transfer title of the Westholme Property to [Plaintiff Jarrah Al-Sabah] as agreed. [Citations to originally unverified FAP.]

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

IPSUM INC. VS PAET REAL ESTATE, LLC, ET AL.

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on August 12, 2020, and a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on August 14, 2020, alleging five (5) causes of action sounding in: (1) Breach of Written Contract; (2) Quantum Meruit; (3) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; (4) Negligent Misrepresentation; and (5) Good and Services Rendered. PRESENTATION: Newman filed the instant motion on October 05, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition on October 26, 2020, and Newman filed a reply on November 02, 2020.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LEAFIRE INC, ET AL. VS CADM INC, ET AL.

“Justifiable reliance is an essential element of a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, and the reasonableness of the reliance is ordinarily a question of fact.” (Guido v. Koopman (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 837, 843.) On the face of the complaint, plaintiffs sufficiently allege that they justifiably relied on HFE defendants’ representation that Gu, through CADM, owned the cannabis facilities. (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 19, 50.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GAUMER VS LORENZO

Fraudulent Misrepresentation (C/A 5) The fraudulent misrepresentation claim is based on allegations that Defendant promised to repay Plaintiff for money spent on the business and she did not do so. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant knew these statements were false. This claim references two documents, the operating agreement and promissory note, which are attached to the amended complaint.

  • Hearing

CATHERINE POZON, ET AL. VS JEFFERY CHOI, ET AL.

Superscope (1985) 39 Cal.3d 18, 29-31 (finding that a plaintiff may assert an action for fraudulent misrepresentation even where the purported fraudulent promise is unenforceable under the statute of frauds); see also Texaco, Inc. v. Ponsoldt (9th Cir. 1991) 939 F.2d 794, 801-02 (discussing Tenzer).) Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer to the second cause of action is overruled.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

NICOLE MAYS VS MORTGAGE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, INC., ET AL.

On October 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed the second amended complaint for wrongful foreclosure, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence (fourth cause of action), unfair business practices, promissory estoppel, cancellation of instruments, conversion, negligence (ninth cause of action), negligence (tenth cause of action), professional negligence (eleventh cause of action), and breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

D'ANDRE HUMES, ET AL. VS MARCILLA HAYSLETT, ET AL.

On March 16, 2018, Plaintiffs in pro per filed a complaint for Breach of Contract: Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, and Intentional infliction of Emotional Distress. On April 6, 2018, counsel for Plaintiffs substituted into the case.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

NICOLE MAYS VS MORTGAGE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, INC., ET AL.

On October 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed the second amended complaint for wrongful foreclosure, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence (fourth cause of action), unfair business practices, promissory estoppel, cancellation of instruments, conversion, negligence (ninth cause of action), negligence (tenth cause of action), professional negligence (eleventh cause of action), and breach of fiduciary duty. RULING: Moot.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

RAYMOND SAFARIAN VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

Accordingly, the court will not grant the motion simply because Plaintiff’s claim is for fraudulent omission rather than fraudulent misrepresentation. 3. Independent, Non-Speculative Personal Injury or Property Damage Ford further argues that a Plaintiff is required to allege damages other than contractual damages to avoid the economic loss rule. MJOP 11-12.

  • Hearing

ST. GEORGE WAREHOUSING & TRUCKING CO. OF CALIFORNIA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS JOSE CARDENAS, ET AL.

The FAC asserts causes of action for (1) breach of contract against Lincoln, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Lincoln, (3) negligent breach of contract against STS and Green Line, (4) fraudulent misrepresentation against Defendants, (5) negligent misrepresentation against Defendants, (6) tortious interference with contract against Defendants, (7) conversion against Defendants, (8) economic duress against Defendants, (9) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act against

  • Hearing

GERALD M. FRIEDMAN, ET AL. VS YOSSI DINA, ET AL.

The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on November 22, 2019, and asserts 15 causes of action for breach of written loan agreement, as well as causes of action for judicial foreclosure, recovery of personal property, conversion, financial elder abuse, fraudulent misrepresentation, money lent, money had and received, and declaratory relief. On July 27, 2020, Defendants filed their Answer, in which they assert 58 affirmative defenses.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ALEX JOHNSON, ET AL. VS DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE

Goldrich and Mirkin involved claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, not fraudulent concealment, and these cases are inapposite to the standard applied for fraudulent concealment claims. See Goldrich, 25 Cal. App. 4th at 784 (recognizing plaintiff had not pleaded fraudulent concealment, but instead had asserted a fraudulent misrepresentation claim); accord Mirkin, 5 Cal. 4th at 1088-89.

  • Hearing

D'ANDRE HUMES, ET AL. VS MARCILLA HAYSLETT, ET AL.

On March 16, 2018, Plaintiffs in pro per filed a complaint for Breach of Contract: Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, and Intentional infliction of Emotional Distress. On April 6, 2018, counsel for Plaintiffs substituted into the case.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

MGA ENTERTAINMENT, INC. VS BRAT, INC.

Hence, Plaintiff alleges that the original terms of the settlement agreement whereby Defendant requested the continued use of “@brat” constituted a fraudulent misrepresentation in order to induce entry into the agreement. On January 17, 2020 and January 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed its complaint and first amended complaint for Breach of Contract, Intentional Misrepresentation, Trademark Infringement, Common Law Trademark Infringement, False Designation of Origin, and Declaratory Judgment.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ALVIN LEWIS VS MICHAEL HINKSON

Cross-Defendant demurs to the second cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation arguing that the Cross-Complaint fails to allege facts with the requisite particularity. In opposition, Cross-Complainant argues that he has sufficiently alleged his cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation. The Court finds that Cross-Complainant has failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation.

  • Hearing

ROCHA V. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

Cal. 2007) 582 F.Supp.2d 1261, that fraud by concealment causes of action do not require specific factual allegations regarding the time, place, and specific content of false representations as well as the identities of the parties to the misrepresentations, because fraud by concealment is premised upon a failure to disclose and not an affirmative act of fraudulent misrepresentation. The U.S.

  • Hearing

STUART J CARTER VS SERGE BUENO, ET AL.

Fifth and Seventh Causes of Action These causes of action are for fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. Defendants argue the FAC does not state a cause of action. The elements of fraud are: (1) a misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure; (2) knowledge of falsity (or “scienter”); (3) intent to defraud, i.e., induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage. (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 974.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ULRS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS DYNAMIC CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

On September 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of written contract; (2) unjust enrichment; (3) breach of personal guaranty; and (4) fraudulent misrepresentation[1]. Moving Defendant filed a demurrer to the third and fourth causes of action in the FAC. MEET AND CONFER The meet and confer requirement has been met. DEMURRER “A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law.” (Durell v.

  • Hearing

JOHN K. PIERSON, ET AL. VS PETER NYGARD, ET AL.

The 2nd cause of action in SC127637 against Alpine and Tonto is for fraudulent misrepresentation. See 5th Amended Complaint in SC127637, ¶¶45-56. The 3rd cause of action in SC127637 against Alpine alleges willful misconduct, e.g. misappropriation of funds. Id. at ¶¶57-74.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 32     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.