Fraudulent Misrepresentation in California

While fraudulent misrepresentation is notably different than fraudulent concealment in that a fraudulent misrepresentation cause of action is not based a duty, Plaintiffs apparent potential fraudulent misrepresentation claim, as currently pled, does not meet the specificity requirements for pleading fraudulent misrepresentation. TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants demurrer as to the third cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH 20 days LEAVE TO AMEND.

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].)

ANALYSIS Defendants demur to the SAC, arguing that the fifth cause of action for Fraudulent Misrepresentation fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a valid cause of action and is uncertain. Fifth cause of action: Intentional/Fraudulent Misrepresentation Defendants demur to the SAC, arguing that Plaintiff fails to plead fraudulent misrepresentation with the required specificity.

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.

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 asserts that Plaintiff may not maintain a cause of action against her as the courts will not assist an individual in committing a fraud.

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.

Defendants demurrer to Plaintiffs cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation is overruled. 2.

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.

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

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).)

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.

Contrary to Defendants assertion, Plaintiff has pled the fraudulent concealment and fraudulent misrepresentation claims with sufficient particularity and has sufficiently alleged Defendants intentionally concealed or suppressed and/or misrepresented material facts.

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 causes of action against Keller are (1) Negligence and (5) Fraudulent Misrepresentation. Keller has filed a motion requesting summary adjudication on three issues. There is no opposition filed. LEGAL STANDARD The initial burden rests with the side moving for summary judgment, even in the absence of an opposition. Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc . (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.

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.

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).

At this demurrer stage, this Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately alleged the elements of his sixth COA of fraudulent misrepresentation in his FAC. Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s sixth COA of fraudulent misrepresentation in his FAC is OVERRULED. 2.

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.

Plaintiffs fail to explain why their fraudulent misrepresentation claims exist independently of their contract claim against Defendant such that the fifth cause of action is not barred by the economic loss rule.

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.

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.

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.

Fifth Cause of Action for Fraudulent Misrepresentation Defendants argue that the fraudulent misrepresentation claim fails because it is not alleged with the required particularity, does not allege fraudulent misrepresentation, and fails to allege reliance or resulting damages. (Dem. at p. 8:9-11:4.) In response, Plaintiffs contend that they have sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation. (Oppn at p. 9:19-12:20.)

Accordingly, the delayed discovery rule and applicable statute of limitations bars Plaintiffs claims for fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs claims for fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation are barred by the statute of limitations pursuant to CCP § 338(d). Next, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs cause of action for conversion is similarly time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations pursuant to CCP § 338(c)(1).

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.

Movants contend that the third cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation fails because Plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead facts indicating Alliances knowledge of the falsity of their alleged misrepresentations, its intent to induce Plaintiffs reliance on the misrepresentations, or Plaintiffs reliance on Alliances statements.

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.

Code § 17200; (3) fraudulent misrepresentation; (4) unjust enrichment; and (5) negligent misrepresentation. The Court CONTINUES this hearing to Tuesday April 8, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. to allow the Court to consider Defendants Objection to Plaintiffs Opposition and Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication, filed March 25, 2025.

On December 5, 2025, Plaintiff Nina Jackson, a pro per litigant, filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (SAC) for (1) legal malpractice, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) constructive fraud, and (4) fraudulent misrepresentation. Keith Custis and Custis Law, P.C. now seek to compel further responses from Plaintiff to their RFAs. The Motion is denied as moot because Plaintiff served supplemental responses. No sanctions. Moving party to give notice.

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.

On December 5, 2025, Plaintiff Nina Jackson, a pro per litigant, filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (SAC) for (1) legal malpractice, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) constructive fraud, and (4) fraudulent misrepresentation. Keith Custis now seeks to compel initial responses from Plaintiff to his General Form Interrogatories. The motion is denied as moot because Plaintiff now served responses. The Court awards the requested sanctions in the amount of $371.02, payable within 30 days.

As to the preexisting causes of action for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract, the Court holds that Plaintiff has failed in the TAC to state those claims. The Court is thus sustaining Defendant's demurrer to them.

Fraudulent Misrepresentation The elements of a fraudulent misrepresentation claim are:(1) a misrepresentation, (2) knowledge of falsity, (3) intent to defraud,(4) justifiable reliance, and (5) resulting damage.

On June 15, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their complaint for Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, and Securities Violation California Corporations Code section 25401. RULING Demurrer : Sustained with Leave to Amend.

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.

(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.

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.

Notably, the Court has already overruled Tesla’s demurrers to the causes of action from the survival case (for negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and concealment) that Plaintiffs seek to assert in the proposed Second Amended Complaint.

The fraudulent misrepresentation (fourth) cause of action asserted against Holmes here is essentially identical to the fraudulent misrepresentation (fifth) cause of action asserted against Holmes in the Related Action (case 18021, also in Dept. 40), based on the same underlying facts and the same allegations supporting liability. Holmes is directed to file an answer only as to the FACC (excluding the stayed fourth cause of action) within 21 days.

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.

COA No. 3 – Fraudulent Misrepresentation Defendants are both corporate entities, yet Plaintiff failed to provide allegations regarding any specific individual having the authority to speak on behalf of either of the Defendants. (Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal. App. 4th 153, 157 (“Tarmann”).) Plaintiff also failed to provide facts supporting the how, when, where, and by what means necessary to sustained a fraudulent misrepresentation COA generally. (Lazar v.

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.)

On December 5, 2025, Plaintiff Nina Jackson, a pro per litigant, filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (SAC) for (1) legal malpractice, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) constructive fraud, and (4) fraudulent misrepresentation. Jackson now seeks to compel further responses to her requests for production, sets one and two, from Keith Custis and Custis Law, P.C. Jackson did not timely file a separate statement with her moving papers.

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.

First Cause of Action Fraudulent Misrepresentation 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.)

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.

BACKGROUND On June 25, 2025, Plaintiff Nina Jackson, in pro per, filed a complaint for (1) legal malpractice, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) constructive fraud, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (5) fraudulent misrepresentation, and (6) declaratory relief.

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).

The court agrees the fraudulent misrepresentation cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations. On the face of the complaint, Defendant Jefferson approached Plaintiff in February 2019, five years before the complaint was filed. Because the statute of limitations for a fraud claim is three years, the claim is barred on the face of the complaint. Moreover, the court agrees the fraudulent misrepresentation cause of action is not alleged with the requisite specificity.

(1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.) 1 st Cause of Action: Fraudulent Misrepresentation Defendants contend that Plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation because they do not allege specific facts satisfying each element of their claim. At the outset, the court notes that it focuses only on alleged misrepresentations connected to Plaintiffs investments in the Lanewood property.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

On February 20, 2024, SecurCapital filed a Cross-Complaint against Wave and Mark Boyce, alleging causes of action for (1) fraudulent concealment, (2) fraudulent misrepresentation, (3) fraudulent inducement, (4) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (5) declaratory relief.

Plaintiff sufficiently alleges a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to establish a duty to disclose. At the pleading stage, Plaintiffs duty allegations are sufficient because Defendant backed the vehicle with a warranty and pleading agency of an authorized dealership is sufficient on demurrer.

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.

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.

On December 5, 2025, Plaintiff Nina Jackson, a pro per litigant, filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (SAC) for (1) legal malpractice, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) constructive fraud, and (4) fraudulent misrepresentation. Custis Law, P.C now seeks to compel further responses to its requests for production, set one, nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25-29, 32-44 from Jackson.

Analysis Defendant demurrers to the Third Cause of Action for Fraudulent Misrepresentation and Fourth Cause of Action for Tortious Injury to Property. Each is addressed in turn. A. Third Cause of Action for Fraudulent Misrepresentation Defendant first demurrers to the Third Cause of Action for fraudulent misrepresentation.

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.

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.