What is fraudulent misrepresentation?

Useful Rulings on Fraudulent Misrepresentation

Recent Rulings on Fraudulent Misrepresentation

JOHNATHAN MOLTONI, ET AL. VS XTREME MOTOR SPORTS, INC., ET AL.

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting a cause of action against Defendants and Does 1-20 for: Breach of Contract Fraudulent Misrepresentation Negligent Misrepresentation Fraud—Concealment Violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200 Conversion Unjust Enrichment Conspiracy Money Had and Received Negligence On June 24, 2019, Defendants’ defaults were entered. On October 24, 2019, Plaintiffs dismissed Xtreme, without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KRISTIE DOYLE, ET AL. V. IMERYS TALC AMERICA INC., ET AL.

Fraud Causes of Action J&J Moves for summary adjudication of the third cause of action which alleges fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy. J&J first argues that Plaintiffs do not possess or cannot obtain evidence of a fraudulent misrepresentation or reliance thereon.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

PUTTI, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS AGOP CANCIK, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

While there certainly is some overlap in the damages alleged as a result of straight breach of contract and the fraud causes of action, plaintiff does allege that it would not have allowed its rights to be subordinated to the lender’s but for this alleged fraudulent misrepresentation.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CELSO FERNANDEZ VS HO SOUNG WON, ET AL.

Plaintiff pleads a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation in two parts: (1) Part A – Fraudulent Misrepresentation Re: Reimbursement of Business Expenses; and (2) Part B – Fraudulent Misrepresentation Re: Commissions of 3% of Pallet Sales and 2% of Online Sales. (See FAC, ¶¶ 154-186.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PATRICIA SOARES ET AL VS WESTERN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

In the thirteenth affirmative defense, Defendant refers to intentional conduct “including, but not limited to, with respect to the deliberate concealment of certain information and/or fraudulent misrepresentation so as to preclude recovery and/or render any contract that may have been entered into as between defendant, on the one hand, and Kow and assignor, on the other hand, inapplicable and ineffective in this instance.” (Answer ¶ 13.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GREGORY BERGER, ET AL. VS LEE SAMSON, ET AL.

The second amended complaint alleges: (1) statutory cause of action for resident neglect by care custodians under Welfare & Institutions Code, sections 15600 et seq, 15610 et seq, 15610.57, and 15657; (2) medical malpractice – wrongful death; (3) general custodial care negligence – wrongful death; (4) fraudulent misrepresentation; and (5) fraudulent concealment.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

., 15610.57, and 15657; (2) medical malpractice – wrongful death; (3) general custodial care negligence – wrongful death; (4) fraudulent misrepresentation; and (5) fraudulent concealment.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

SHELLY HART VS COURTNEY SULLIVAN, ET AL.

Legacy also contends that Plaintiff’s claim of fraudulent misrepresentation is uncertain because she fails to allege specific facts giving rise to it.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TRIWEST DEVELOPMENT, LLC... VS SAM OSTAYAN; ET AL

The Court of Appeal also noted that: Justifiable reliance is an essential element of a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, and the reasonableness of the reliance is ordinarily a question of fact. [citations.] However, whether a party's reliance was justified may be decided as a matter of law if reasonable minds can come to only one conclusion based on the facts. (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Appeal, § 289, p. 301. (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DAVID HALCROW VS JUSTIN UNDERWOOD, ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Medical Malpractice; Unfair Business Practices; Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; and Fraudulent Misrepresentation. On March 4, 2020, the Court sustained Defendant Rowan Center’s demurrer to the entire complaint with leave to amend and sustained Defendants’ demurrer to the third cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SHENTU V. LIFEPRINT PRODUCTS

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

    Jun 26, 2020

HALLETT V. JACQUET, ET AL.

When read as a whole, the Court finds that there are sufficient allegations in the 4AC to support a fraudulent misrepresentation claim. The demurrer as to the first cause of action is overruled. Second Cause of Action for Fraudulent Inducement to Enter Contract The elements of a cause of action for fraudulent inducement are (1) a fraudulent representation; (2) to induce contract (or forbearance); and (3) that is not a part of the contract. (A. A. Baxter Corp. v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

DARYL WHITE VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Specificity of the Fraud Allegations 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

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MELKONIAN ENTERPRISES, INC. V. SUN-MAID GROWERS OF CALIFORNIA

However, to establish a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, plaintiffs must prove that: (1) Sun-Maid represented to plaintiffs that an important fact was true; (2) that representation was false; (3) Sun-Maid knew the representation was false when it made it, or it made it recklessly and without regard for its truth; (4) Sun-Maid intended that plaintiffs rely on the representation; (5) plaintiffs reasonably relied on the representation; (6) plaintiffs were harmed; and (7) plaintiffs’ reliance on the representation

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

MONICA BLUT VS OCEANS INTERNATIONAL PACKING AND SHIPPING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Analysis Likelihood of Prevailing First Cause of Action – Fraudulent Misrepresentation 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

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GLOBAL SOURCE LOGISTICS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS STONER GABLE

The elements of fraudulent misrepresentation claim are (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 was harmed; and (7) the

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

SUSANNAH O'BRIEN ET AL VS JOHN RICHARD ROGERS ET AL

O’Brien filed the FAC on April 5, 2018, alleging 11 causes of action: Breach of Contract Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Breach of Fiduciary Duties Conversion Fraud and Fraudulent Misrepresentation Unjust Enrichment Intentional Misrepresentation Negligent Misrepresentation Fraudulent Concealment Unfair Business Practices Accounting On July 24, 2018, this Court denied Rogers’s Motion to Compel Arbitration.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JEFFREY BARR VS ACTION SALES & METAL CO INC ET AL

‘It is not … necessary that [a plaintiff's] reliance upon the truth of the fraudulent misrepresentation be the sole or even the predominant or decisive factor in influencing his conduct. … It is enough that the representation has played a substantial part, and so has been a substantial factor, in influencing his decision.’” (Citation omitted.) (Conroy v. Regents of University of California (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1244, 1256.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

KEVIN SAURER ET AL VS GADFLY COMMUNICATIONS INC ET AL

Here, it is undisputed that Gerson is a project manager and at all relevant times was acting within the scope of his employment with Gadfly, including when he made the allegedly fraudulent misrepresentation that “immediate projects” would be available for plaintiffs. (UMF 3, OMF 37.) However, an agent is liable for his own acts “when his acts are wrongful in their nature,” regardless of whether the principal is liable or amenable to judicial action.” (Mears v. Crocker First Nat.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CASILIO VS. VALENTINE

The Fourth Amended Complaint (“4th AC”) alleges three causes of action: (1) Fraudulent Transfer; (2) Return of Value of Membership in LLC; and (3) Fraudulent Misrepresentation. ZLAJ contends that each of these fails to state a cause of action. First Cause of Action, Fraudulent Transfer Based on the 4th AC and reasonable inferences, the facts are as follows. John Valentine is a member and majority owner of a limited liability company, ZLAJ, and had possession and control of its assets. (¶ 3.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 03, 2020

O'BRIEN VS SHUMWAY MD

The demurrer attacked count two of the FAC for fraudulent misrepresentation; it was both general and special (vagueness) in nature. The motion to strike attacked allegations relating to "oppressive" and adhesive contract terms. Plaintiff filed opposition. ROA 26-28. Dr. Shumway filed reply. ROA 31-32. The court reviewed the papers, and following a hearing on Dec. 13, 2019, sustained the demurrer with ten days leave to amend in a detailed ruling. ROA 41.

  • Hearing

    Mar 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

CAPITAL CARE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL. VS EILEEN CHAN, ET AL.

On April 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendants/Cross-Complainants asserting causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of fiduciary duty – duty of care; (3) breach of fiduciary duty – duty of loyalty; (4) fraudulent misrepresentation; (5) negligent misrepresentation; (6) conversion; (7) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; (8) accounting; (9) negligence; and (10) money had and received.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOHN MILLER, ET AL. VS MARTIN D. GROSS, ET AL.

‘It is not … necessary that [a plaintiff's] reliance upon the truth of the fraudulent misrepresentation be the sole or even the predominant or decisive factor in influencing his conduct. … It is enough that the representation has played a substantial part, and so has been a substantial factor, in influencing his decision.’” (Citation omitted.) Conroy v. Regents of University of California (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1244, 1256.

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

INDAI SHON VS SUK JONG YOO ET AL

‘It is not … necessary that [a plaintiff's] reliance upon the truth of the fraudulent misrepresentation be the sole or even the predominant or decisive factor in influencing his conduct. … It is enough that the representation has played a substantial part, and so has been a substantial factor, in influencing his decision.’” (Citation omitted.) Conroy v. Regents of University of California (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1244, 1256.

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

CAMERON T. NEVINS VS VAN ORDEN

The Broker also demurs on grounds that, where the tortious action is inducing a breach of contract, there applicable statute of limitations is two-years and, here, Plaintiffs fail to allege when the Broker made the alleged fraudulent misrepresentation.

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 28     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.