Fraudulent Misrepresentation in California

Second Cause of Action for Fraudulent Misrepresentation. Defendants’ demurrer to the second cause of action is overruled. The SAC states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation. (Robinson Helicopter, Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 990 [elements of fraudulent misrepresentation]; SAC ¶¶ 2, 28, 44-45, 53, 60, 123-128, 123-131, 133.) Third Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Defendants’ demurrer to the third cause of action is sustained.

First Cause of Action for Fraud and Deceit Cross-Complainants have alleged sufficient facts to state a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation. (Cross-Compl., ¶¶ 16, 36-39, 41-47, 77-81; Robinson Helicopter, Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 990 [elements of fraudulent misrepresentation].)

Fraudulent Misrepresentation 4. Fraudulent Misrepresentation 5. Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations RULING : The demurrer to the 3 rd cause of action is sustained with 30 days leave to amend.

In response, Plaintiff asserts that the Court’s order sustaining the demurrer to the fraudulent misrepresentation cause of action was not as limiting as Ebrahimian contends, pointing to the statement in the conclusion of the order which provided that Plaintiff was granted leave to amend based upon the discussion at the hearing.

However, there are allegations that indicate this is a fraudulent misrepresentation cause of action. Specifically, Plaintiffs generically argues that Defendant made unidentified representations with the intent of inducing reliance from Plaintiffs. (Complaint, ¶ 43.) Fraudulent misrepresentation requires: (1) a misrepresentation, (2) defendant’s knowledge that the representation is false, (3) defendant intends to defraud plaintiff, (4) justifiable reliance by plaintiff, and (5) damages. (Lazar v.

As a result, Plaintiff filed her complaint for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and cancellation of the quit claim deed. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff may not maintain a cause of action against her as the courts will not assist an individual in committing a fraud.

On December 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging a cause of action against Defendants for: (1) Medical Negligence; (2) Negligent Misrepresentation; (3) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; and (4) Fraudulent Concealment. On February 2, 2017, Defendants Hrayr Shahinian and Skull Base Institute filed a demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint. No opposition was filed. Demurrer Defendants Hrayr Shahinian (“Dr.

On December 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging a cause of action against Defendants for: (1) Medical Negligence; (2) Negligent Misrepresentation; (3) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; and (4) Fraudulent Concealment. On February 16, 2017, Defendant Mission Community Hospital filed a demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint and a motion to strike portions of Plaintiff’s complaint. No opposition was filed.

As a result, Plaintiff filed her complaint for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and cancellation of the quit claim deed. Defendant Phyllis A. Jones demurs to all causes of action in Plaintiff Phyllis E. Jones’ Second Amended Complaint on the grounds each claim fails to state facts sufficient to support a cause of action.

It purports to state two causes of action against this Defendant: fraudulent misrepresentation and unfair business practices. The allegations are insufficient to state either of these causes of action, however, as discussed below. As to Defendant’s statute of limitations arguments, Plaintiffs’ allegations are not sufficiently clear to determine whether they are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.

DISCUSSION As a result of a deposition of Defendants agent on October 3, 2023, Plaintiffs discovered evidence suggesting fraudulent misrepresentation. (Diaz Decl. ¶ 3.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek to add a fraud claim to their complaint. The recent deposition explains when the facts giving rise to the amendment were discovered and why the amendment was not made earlier. (See Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1324(b)(3), (b)(4).)

Plaintiff to plead the fraudulent misrepresentation with greater particularity. =(302/CWW/JW)

Massie’s fourth cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation fails to state facts sufficient to state a claim and is uncertain and ambiguous. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(e), (f).) With his fraudulent misrepresentation claim, Mr. Massie alleges that, prior to Plaintiff’s filing the instant action, he had “no knowledge or belief” that Plaintiff expected to be repaid for any of the loans she made to Mr.

The FAC asserts the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; and (3) Concealment. Defendant BLUMERQ INVESTMENTS, LLC (Defendant) generally demurs to the second and third causes of action. Second and Third Causes of Action Fraudulent Misrepresentation and Concealment Defendant first argues that the second and third claims are barred by the economic loss rule. The demurrer is not sustained on this basis.

PARTY: (1) and (2) Plaintiff Brady Ryan TENTATIVE RULING Defendant General Motors LLCs Demurrer to the 1 st cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment, 2 nd cause of action for negligent misrepresentation and 3 rd cause of action for violation of B&PC §17200 is OVERRULED. Defendant GMs Motion to Strike is DENIED.

The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend as to the 10th cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, and is otherwise overruled. The elements of intentional misrepresentation are: (a) misrepresentation, (b) knowledge of falsity (or scienter), (c) intent to defraud, (d) justifiable reliance, and (e) resulting damage. (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951.)

Defendants' Demurrer to the 1st Cause of Action (Fraudulent Misrepresentation), the 2nd Cause of Action (Fraudulent Concealment), the 3rd Cause of Action (Promissory Fraud), and the 4th Cause of Action (Negligent Misrepresentation) are sustained without leave to amend. No Opposition to the Demurrer was filed by Plaintiff. Defendants' Demurrer to the 5th Cause of Action (Breach of Written TRPN Contract) is overruled. The allegations are sufficient to bind Blue Shield.

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.

Fraudulent Misrepresentation 3. Negligent Misrepresentation 4. Promissory Estoppel 5. Unfair Business Practices – B&P 17200 RULING : The hearing on the demurrer is placed off calendar. Due to the filing of a First Amended Complaint on 1/4/21, the demurrer is rendered moot. See CCP 472(a).

DMS The demurrer to the fourth cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation is overruled, and the demurrer to the fifth cause of action for negligent misrepresentation is overruled.

As to Plaintiffs’ allegations related to elder abuse, fraudulent misrepresentation and attorneys’ fees and punitive damages, the motion is granted with leave to amend.

As to Plaintiffs’ allegations related to elder abuse, fraudulent misrepresentation and attorneys’ fees and punitive damages, the motion is granted with leave to amend.

As to Plaintiffs’ allegations related to elder abuse, fraudulent misrepresentation and attorneys’ fees and punitive damages, the motion is granted with leave to amend.

As to Plaintiffs’ allegations related to elder abuse, fraudulent misrepresentation and attorneys’ fees and punitive damages, the motion is granted with leave to amend.

Second Cause of Action for Fraudulent Misrepresentation. The demurrer to the second cause of action is overruled as to Defendant Smith. Plaintiffs pled sufficient facts to constitute an intentional misrepresentation fraud cause of action. (Robinson Helicopter, Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 990 [elements of fraudulent misrepresentation].) However, Plaintiff did not plead sufficient facts to allege a cause of action for intentional misrepresentation against Defendant Brown.

As to Plaintiffs’ allegations related to elder abuse, fraudulent misrepresentation and attorneys’ fees and punitive damages, the motion is granted with leave to amend.

As to Plaintiffs’ allegations related to elder abuse, fraudulent misrepresentation and attorneys’ fees and punitive damages, the motion is granted with leave to amend.

As to Plaintiffs’ allegations related to elder abuse, fraudulent misrepresentation and attorneys’ fees and punitive damages, the motion is granted with leave to amend.

P22-01264 MATTER OF: THE RAHUL BHIDE LIVING TRUST DATED NOVEMBER 13, 2012 9:00 AM HEARING IN RE: PETITION FOR ORDER CONFIRMING TRUST ASSETS; UNDUE INFLUENCE; FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION; RETURN OF TRUST ASSETS; UNJUST ENRICHMENT; DOUBLE DAMAGES; ATTORNEYS' FEES FILED ON 2/7/23 BYLALIT BALCHANDANI Need: 1. Appearances 2.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s causes of action for (1) fraudulent misrepresentation; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) breach of contract; (4) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (5) unfair business practices are sufficiently pled. Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is DENIED as to Exhibit A. Evid. Code §452.

The FAC does not contain these requisite facts. 5COA (Constructive Fraud): The FAC does not allege a fiduciary or confidential relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant; Defendant’s intent to deceive; nor does it state specific facts as to who made a fraudulent misrepresentation, what was said or written, and when. (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 73.)

The FAC does not contain these requisite facts. 5COA (Constructive Fraud): The FAC does not allege a fiduciary or confidential relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant; Defendant’s intent to deceive; nor does it state specific facts as to who made a fraudulent misrepresentation, what was said or written, and when. (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 73.)

The FAC does not contain these requisite facts. 5COA (Constructive Fraud): The FAC does not allege a fiduciary or confidential relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant; Defendant’s intent to deceive; nor does it state specific facts as to who made a fraudulent misrepresentation, what was said or written, and when. (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 73.)

With respect to the motion to strike the punitive damages allegations and demand, the motion is moot in light of the ruling to sustain the demurrer to Twin Power’s ninth cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation.

The fraudulent misrepresentation claims regarding Mr. Dhaliwal have not been specifically alleged. It is unclear when the statements at issue were made and how they were made. The fraudulent concealment allegations have not been sufficiently alleged. There are no allegations that Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to disclose, or had Plaintiff known about the disclosed information he would have acted differently.

Demurrer to Sixth and Seventh Causes of Action for Fraudulent Misrepresentation and Promissory Fraud. Claims based in fraud must be specifically pleaded, with facts constituting each element of the cause of action alleged. (Hall v. Dept. of Adoptions (1975) 47 Cal.App. 898, 904.) The required elements of an action for fraudulent misrepresentation are willful deceit of another with intention to induce him to alter his position, injury or risk and damages. (Civil Code § 1709.)

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

Binstok’s punitive damages claims are tied to its fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment causes of action. Therefore, the question is whether fraud is adequately pled in the FACC. Incidentally, the Court notes that NAMM did not bring a demurrer to the fraud causes of action for failure to state a claim. In any event, the Court finds that fraud is sufficiently alleged in the FACC.

Plaintiffs failed to plead an actionable fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment or negligent misrepresentation. The first cause of action is adequately pled. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

The first and second causes of action for fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment lack sufficient specificity. Although there is an inference Hark represented to the board the rate for the rental, there was a negotiation after the representation. Thus, revisions are required to determine whether there was an intent to rely on the initial alleged misrepresentation, and who the representations were made to within the board.

The first and second causes of action for fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment lack sufficient specificity. Although there is an inference Hark represented to the board the rate for the rental, there was a negotiation after the representation. Thus, revisions are required to determine whether there was an intent to rely on the initial alleged misrepresentation, and who the representations were made to within the board.

Demurrer to Amended Cross-Complaint by Cross Defendant EAC; Overrule as to 1st cause of action; no legal requirement to attach a copy of the contract, instead plaintiff can plead legal effect of contract; Sustain with 15 days’ leave to amend as to the 2nd cause of action since it is unclear whether cross complainant is pleading false promise, concealment or fraudulent misrepresentation; Overrule as to the 3rd and 4th causes of action.

Finally, the SAC alleges that “[a]s a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ fraudulent misrepresentation, Plaintiff has suffered substantial damages . . . “ (SAC ¶73.) Plaintiff has thus alleged sufficient facts to state a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation such that Defendant Key has been given notice and furnished with definite charges.

The Complaint, however, does not allege a specific cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation and the opposition points to no allegations in the Complaint that would support such a cause of action. (Compl., p. 1; Opp., p. 3:15-16.) The Court sustained Defendant FPIs demurrer to the Complaint on July 3, 2023 and did not give Plaintiffs leave to amend to add a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation.

(4) Plaintiff’s first and second cause of action against LADBS Inspector Richard Horn for negligence and fraudulent misrepresentation are without merit as Inspector Horn’s inspection occurred nearly 22 months after plaintiff’s injury.

(4) Plaintiff’s first and second cause of action against LADBS Inspector Richard Horn for negligence and fraudulent misrepresentation are without merit as Inspector Horn’s inspection occurred nearly 22 months after plaintiff’s injury.

(4) Plaintiff’s first and second cause of action against LADBS Inspector Richard Horn for negligence and fraudulent misrepresentation are without merit as Inspector Horn’s inspection occurred nearly 22 months after plaintiff’s injury.

On December 30, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint for Breach of Contract, Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Bad Faith Denial of Payment of Insurance Claim, Unfair Business Practices, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Constructive Fraud, and Unjust Enrichment. On February 25, 2022, the case was transferred from Department 32 to Department 49. RECOMMENDED RULING Demurrer: Sustained with Leave to Amend.

The first cause of action for "fraudulent misrepresentation" fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because this cause of action is barred by federal preemption. The InterStim system that is the basis of plaintiff's claims against Medtronic is a Class III medical device that received Premarket Approval by the United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). Plaintiff has failed to allege facts to support any misrepresentation that is not preempted by the devise's labeling.

Defendant’s demurrer to the first cause of action for breach of contract, second cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, third cause of action for quiet title, fourth cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, fifth cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and seventh cause of action for unfair business practices in plaintiff Monticello Seasonal Cuisine, Inc.’s complaint is OVERRULED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)

Plaintiff sues defendant for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The case upon which defendant relies to establish that Shea has no liability to plaintiff as the managing officer of defendant Lyon Real Estate is inapposite. (Sandler v. Sanchez (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1431.)

The responses did not identify any misrepresentation or specific documents supporting the claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. (Mayfield Decl., Ex. 4 at pp. 5-7, 12.) The discovery responses are factually-devoid as to the claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. Defendant shifted the burden. In opposition, Plaintiffs do not mention the third cause of action or their fraudulent misrepresentation cause of action.

Fraudulent Misrepresentation Defendants argue that this cause of action is improperly asserted because it exceeded the scope of leave to amend. The Court agrees. Plaintiffs original Complaint asserted a cause of action for fraud by concealment. Then, without seeking leave to amend, Plaintiff changed this cause of action to fraudulent misrepresentation.

Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action is premised upon the same facts alleged in her third cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation.

Fraudulent Misrepresentation ( not alleged against Monolith Studios, Inc. or Josh Furlow ). 4. Fraudulent Misrepresentation 5. Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations *The notice of demurrer indicates that it is to the 1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd and 4 th causes of action. However, the First Amended Complaint has 5 causes of action (the 3 rd cause of action is for fraudulent misrepresentation against other parties).

This was a false and fraudulent misrepresentation because Defendant knew for a certainty that Plaintiffs airbag was totally disabled.

Plaintiff has adequately pled all the elements of its claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiff alleges defendant misrepresented that he was a properly licensed contractor, but that in fact he was not because his license was suspended. Plaintiff further alleges that this misrepresentation induced it to enter into the construction contract at issue, and that plaintiff would not have entered into the contract had it known the truth about defendant’s suspended license.

The 5th and 6th causes of action are fraud based, and require specificity as to who, what, and when the fraudulent misrepresentation was made. That is lacking. Also lacking is a duty to disclose. This is an arms length business transaction, and the duty to disclose should be based on statute, case law, or a point blank inquiry. Sustain demurrer. Court will entertainment argument on issue of leave to amend.

There is nothing in the email that shows it was sent in anticipation of litigation.As to the 3rd Cause of Action (Fraud), the allegations are sufficient to show Fraud and conspiracy between the Defendants to make a fraudulent misrepresentation. See Paragraph 41 of the Complaint.As to the 4th Cause of Action, the request for injunction is mooted by the sale of the property. That leaves a claim for money damages.

Defendants' Demurrer to the 1st Cause of Action (Fraudulent Misrepresentation), the 2nd Cause of Action (Fraudulent Concealment), the 3rd Cause of Action (Promissory Fraud), and the 4th Cause of Action (Negligent Misrepresentation) is overruled. The economic loss rule does not apply because Plaintiff has alleged at least one misrepresentation made before the contract was formed. The Third Amended Complaint alleges that TRPN was the agent for Blue Shield when the contract was formed.

The court clarifies that the status of the court filed documents reflect there is a single plaintiff in this action, Steven Ray Songer, who filed a first amended complaint on December 22, 2017 alleging eight causes of action (1) breach of contract/implied covenant; (2) breach of contract/promissory estoppel; (3) breach of contract/unjust enrichment; (4) fraudulent misrepresentation; (5) negligent misrepresentation; (6) UCL violations; (7) declaratory relief; and (8) negligence per se.

AS TO THE 1ST CAUSE OF ACTION (FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION) PLAINTIFF MUST ALLEGE DEFENDANTS KNEW THEY WERE FALSE. PLAINTIFF MUST PARTICULARLY IDENTIFY THE ALLEGED FALSE REPRESENTATIONS THAT FORM THE BASIS OF THE 1ST, 2ND AND 3RD CAUSES OF ACTION. AS TO THE 4TH CAUSE OF ACTION (CONVERSION) PLAINTIFF MUST ALLEGE THE DEFENDANTS' INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION. AS TO THE 6TH CAUSE OF ACTION (INDUCING BREACH OF CONTRACT) PLAINTIFF MUST PLEAD A THEORY NOT BARRED BY SHOEMAKER V. MYERS (1990) 52 CAL.3D 1.

As to the 3rd cause of action (fraudulent misrepresentation) plaintiff must plead a legally recognized duty and justifiable reliance. Plaintiff must overcome the general rule that there is not duty between a lending institution and a borrower. (Nymark vs. Heart Fed. & Loan Assoc. Sav. (1191) 231 Cal.App. 3rd 1089.) As to the 4th cause of action (implied covenant) plaintiff must plead substantive duties that are not beyond those incorporated into the terms of the parties contract. (Agosta vs.

The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on October 9, 2020, and asserts causes of action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of personal guaranty, and fraudulent misrepresentation. Ebrahimian now demurs to the third cause of action for breach of personal guaranty and fourth cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation. Plaintiff opposes.

Furthermore, for the fraudulent misrepresentation cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that she justifiably relied on Defendant’s conduct, but she fails to state facts showing how she relied on Defendant’s statements/conduct. For these reasons, Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to allege the fraud (fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation) causes of action against Defendant.

Under the 3rd cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, cross-complainant alleges that Maniaci falsely represented to Bergan that he would evenly split the profits from the SHE Venture with Bergan for the full duration of the partnership. Id., ¶23.

As set forth in the ruling on demurrer, the Fourth Amended Complaint adequately pleads causes of action for fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment against Defendant. The fraud allegations support a claim for punitive damages. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

Motion is Granted on causes of action for Fraudulent Misrepresentation and Negligent Misrepresentation, and Denied for causes of action for Breach of Contract and Fraudulent Concealment. On the Breach cause of action, Columbia did not seek immediate review of the court’s Ruling sustaining the Demurrer without Leave, nor was this issue raised on Appeal.

The elements of a fraudulent misrepresentation cause of action are: (a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or scienter); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage. ( Engalia v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc . (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 974.)

After three attempts, plaintiffs still have not specifically alleged facts to support each element of fraudulent misrepresentation. (See, Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 72-73) The Demurrer to the 3rd cause of action for fraudulent concealment is overruled as the elements are sufficiently pled. The Demurrer to the 4th cause of action for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is overruled as plaintiff has adequately alleged the existence of a home improvement contract.

On November 21, 2016, plaintiff filed a complaint for (1) intentional misrepresentation, (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) fraudulent misrepresentation, (4) fraudulent concealment, (5) breach of contract, (6) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (7) breach of fiduciary duties, (8) fraud, (9) constructive fraud, (10) libel, (11) libel per se, and (12) slander and defamation.

Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action alleges four different fraud-based claims: (1) fraudulent misrepresentation; (2) fraudulent concealment; (3) conspiracy to commit fraudulent misrepresentation; and (4) conspiracy to commit fraudulent concealment. The elements of fraudulent misrepresentation are: "a representation, usually of fact, which is false, knowledge of its falsity, intent to defraud, justifiable reliance upon the misrepresentation, and damage resulting from that justifiable reliance." (Stanfield v.

Plaintiffs claims for fraudulent inducement, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation similarly allege damages in the form of unnecessary freight charges, additional employee time to remedy customer concerns, and lost sales. (FAC at ¶¶86, 100, 114.) These damages appear to stem, not from any breach of an independent duty, but rather Defendants alleged failure to perform under the contract.

The demurrer to the third cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation is sustained with leave to amend. The elements of fraud are: (1) misrepresentation; (2) knowledge of falsity (or "scienter"); (3) intent to defraud (induce reliance); (4) justifiable reliance; and, (5) resulting damage. (Charnay v. Cobert (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 170, 184.) " 'A party claiming fraud must plead facts which show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.'" (Stansfield v.

Deny Defendants' request for an order striking Plaintiffs' requests for punitive damages based on the fifth cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation and sixth cause of action for fraudulent concealment, on the ground that a well-pleaded fraud claim supports a claim for punitive damages. . (See Stevens v. Sup. Ct. (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 605, 610-611.)

A statement that a party will pay the medical expenses of another party, then refusing to do so, is not – without significantly more – a basis for a fraudulent misrepresentation claim. Plaintiffs do not respond to this argument. The demurrer as to the cause of action for Fraudulent Misrepresentation is SUSTAINED. It does not appear that there is any independent basis for this action other than the alleged promise to pay for Plaintiff Jennie’s medical expenses.

Explanation: Third and Fourth Causes of Action for Fraudulent Misrepresentation: Defendant demurs to the fraudulent misrepresentation claims in the third and fourth causes of action, contending that plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to support his fraud claims.

Sixth Cause of Action – Fraudulent Misrepresentation Fraudulent misrepresentation requires: (1) a misrepresentation; (2) knowledge of falsity (or "scienter"); (3) intent to defraud (induce reliance); (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage. ( Conroy v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (2009) 45 Cal. 4th 1244, 1255.) Here, Plaintiff pleads Defendants induced him to enter into the contract with them by continually representing that Plaintiff would receive the services under the contract.

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.

OLIVARES, JACQUELINE OLIVARES Tentative Ruling: Grant as to the first cause of action for breach with 60 days leave to amend, deny as to the second and third causes of action for fraudulent misrepresentation and quiet title. Plaintiff Alarcon alleges he owns the property at 52096 Allende Drive in Coachella. He alleges that defendant Juan Olivares was his employee and head mechanic at Alarcon Sons, Inc.

OLIVARES, JACQUELINE OLIVARES Tentative Ruling: Grant as to the first cause of action for breach with 60 days leave to amend, deny as to the second and third causes of action for fraudulent misrepresentation and quiet title. Plaintiff Alarcon alleges he owns the property at 52096 Allende Drive in Coachella. He alleges that defendant Juan Olivares was his employee and head mechanic at Alarcon Sons, Inc.

Fraudulent Misrepresentation 5. Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations RULING : The demurrer to the 3 rd cause of action is overruled. Answer is due within 30 days.

As the Court previously ruled, fraudulent concealment and fraudulent misrepresentation have different pleading elements and standards. See Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384; Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

As the Court previously ruled, fraudulent concealment and fraudulent misrepresentation have different pleading elements and standards. See Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384; Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

On April 13, 2017, Bergan filed a cross-complaint against Daniel Maniaci (“Maniaci”), asserting causes of action for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent misrepresentation, accounting, and declaratory relief. On May 14, 2019, the Court granted Maniaci’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the fraudulent misrepresentation claim in the cross-complaint.

There is no distinction between “Intentional Misrepresentation” and “Fraudulent Misrepresentation.” The demurrer to Causes of Action 8, 9, and 10 are sustained without leave to amend. The demurrer to Cause of Action 12 for Unfair Business Practices fails to meet the burden of persuasion. Mr.

As with the fraudulent misrepresentation cause of action, supra, Plaintiffs have pled no facts supporting the present cause of action because they fail to set forth the specific misrepresentation or the related elements, as required.

Plaintiff contends that, as a result of Defendants’ voluntary dismissal of their claim for false or fraudulent misrepresentation under Bus. & Prof. Code § 7160, he is entitled to attorney’s fees as the “prevailing party.” The Court, however, has previously rejected this argument, asserted in Mr. Paycheck’s opposition to Defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees.

'The maker of a fraudulent misrepresentation is subject to liability ? if the misrepresentation, although not made directly to the other, is made to a third person and the maker intends or has reason to expect that its terms will be repeated or its substance communicated to the other ?." (Hasso v. Hapke (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 107, 130.)

The Turleys claim that in February 2021, their attorney became aware that they had grounds to file a cross-complaint against Munir Uwaydah (who is not currently a party to the action) for fraudulent misrepresentation, false promise, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation, implied indemnity, contribution and indemnity and declaratory relief. (Forry Decl.). The parties could not come to an agreement regarding a stipulation to allow the filing of the Turleys’ proposed cross-complaint.

CAUSES OF ACTION IN SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT: 1) Breach of Written Contract 2) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing 3) Common Counts 4) Negligent Hiring, Supervision, or Retention 5) Fraudulent Misrepresentation 6) Negligent Misrepresentation 7) Negligence This hearing concerns the demurrer and motion to strike of the Defendant, David Kleiman.

Plaintiff’s prior counsel filed a first amended complaint on December 22, 2017 that alleges eight causes of action: (1) breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith & fair dealings; (2) breach of contract – promissory estoppel; (3) breach of contract – unjust enrichment; (4) fraudulent misrepresentation; (5) negligent misrepresentation; (6) UCL violations; (7) declaratory relief; and (8) negligence per se.

Fraudulent Misrepresentation; 6. Common Counts. Motion to be Relieved as Counsel Counsel states, in his declaration, valid reasons for withdrawal. Counsel states that there has been a disruption in the relationship due to a breakdown in communication with the client. The court finds that the attorney has filed and served upon the client a declaration.

In her third cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, Plaintiff alleges Fairweather acted as an agent for Defendants, who are loan brokers, and that Fairweather made various representations to her. (FAC ¶¶ 168-170.) Plaintiff does not allege any misrepresentations were made to her by Defendants; indeed, she admits she never spoke to Carl Maggio or anyone at Maggio Capital, Inc. (Juarez Decl. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff's claim thus depends on proving Fairweather was an agent of Defendants.

Fraudulent Misrepresentation A tort cause of action does not lie when the only wrongdoing alleged is breach of a contractual duty. Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1582, 1602. To allege a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, plaintiff must allege (1) a misrepresentation, concealment or nondisclosure, (2) knowledge of falsity, (3) intent to induce reliance based on the misrepresentation, (4) justifiable reliance and (5) damages. Lazar v.

Plaintiff asserts cases of action for (1) false advertising, (2) fraudulent misrepresentation, (3) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, (4) deceptive business practices and (4) violation of Civil Code section 1723. The complaint arises from activity between June 2015 and March 2016. Comp., ¶7. Plaintiff alleges that defendants made “false, untrue and misleading statements as to the prices of its products and merchandise. ¶9.

The operative First Amended Complaint contains causes of action for: (1) Breach of Written Agreement, (2) Negligence Breach of Non-Fiduciary Duties, (3) Breach of Fiduciary Duties by Escrow Company, (4) Fraudulent Misrepresentation and Concealment and (5) Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices (Business & Professions Code 17200, 17203).

Plaintiff alleges discrimination, harassment, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment arising from his employment with the Department of Public Social Services. Defendants Arnetta Counts, Marina Cooper, and Deitra Whitaker (Individual Defendants) demur to the second amended complaint in its entirety.