What is promissory fraud?

Promissory fraud (aka false promise) is sometimes referred to as a claim of “fraudulent inducement.” (Food Safety Net Services v. Eco Safe Systems USA, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1131. Promissory fraud is a species of fraud that requires allegations and proof of

  1. “a promise made regarding a material fact without any intention of providing it;
  2. the existence of the intent not to perform at the time the promise was made;
  3. intent to deceive or induce the promisee to enter into a transaction;
  4. reasonable reliance by the promisee;
  5. nonperformance by the party making the promise; and
  6. resulting damage to the promisee.”

(Behnke v. State Farm General Ins. Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1443, 1453.)

A three-year statute of limitation applies to fraud claims. (Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (d).)

Useful Rulings on Promissory Fraud

Recent Rulings on Promissory Fraud

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. VS STARQUEST MEDIA, L.L.C., ET AL.

Lastly, “Promissory fraud” or “false promise” is a subspecies of the action for fraud and deceit. (Rossberg v. Bank of America, N.A. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1481, as modified on denial of reh'g (Sept. 26, 2013).)

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

RANCE'S CHICAGO PIZZA, LLC, ET AL. VS UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

First Cause of Action – Promissory Fraud The first cause of action alleges promissory fraud arising from two representations: (1) that Plaintiffs would be able to accept USC meal cards; and (2) that Plaintiffs would compete against only about 25,000 feet of restaurants in the Village. (TAC ¶ 57.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

JAMES PARKER VS MM ENTERPRISES USA, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Promissory Fraud Defendants once again demur to the promissory fraud cause of action. Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts to state a claim for promissory fraud, specifically detrimental reliance. Defendants argue that the allegations do not show that Plaintiff detrimentally relied on Defendants Bierman’s and Modlins’ alleged misrepresentations.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

LEE CAPITAL BUILDERS INC. VS MANDEVILLE CAPITAL LLC

On March 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint, alleging causes of action for (1) breach of oral agreement and (2) promissory fraud.[1] On July 29, 2020, the court consolidated 19STCV45781 with the lead case filed 12/10 days earlier, which is the Lee parties’ lawsuit against Mandeville related to similar transactions. T.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

GAETANO DAVID ADDAMO VS RANDEEP SINGH GREWAL ET AL

The causes of action include claims for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, promissory fraud, promissory estoppel, intentional misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination, retaliation, failure to reimburse business expenses, denial of minimum wage, denial of overtime compensation, failure to issue accurate wage statements, and unfair business practices. (Comp., pp. 12-31.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

L.A. TIRE TECH, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS L&W SUPPLY CORPORATION, A WISCONSIN CORPORATION

CONCLUSION AND ORDER Defendant’s demurrer to the 5th cause of action for promissory fraud in the SAC is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. Plaintiff shall give notice of this order.

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GLABMAN TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, INC. VS. MHT ADVISORS, INC.

This cause of action alleged promissory fraud. “’The elements of fraud, which give rise to the tort action for deceit, 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. . . . ‘Promissory fraud’ is a subspecies of the action for fraud and deceit.

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Miranda (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract, promissory fraud, and common counts against Defendants Ashot Manukian and Marina Manukian on December 30, 2015. A First Amended Complaint was filed on June 19, 2017. On September 18, 2019, Defendants filed a Notice of Vexatious Litigant Order Pursuant to CCP § 391.7(c) regarding Plaintiff. On October 9, 2019, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ action for failure to obtain a prefiling order from the presiding judge.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

MIRANDA, RAFAEL D VS MANUKIAN, ASHOT

Miranda (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for breach of contract, promissory fraud, and common counts against Defendants Ashot Manukian and Marina Manukian on December 30, 2015. A First Amended Complaint was filed on June 19, 2017. On September 18, 2019, Defendants filed a Notice of Vexatious Litigant Order Pursuant to CCP § 391.7(c) regarding Plaintiff. On October 9, 2019, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ action for failure to obtain a prefiling order from the presiding judge.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

SOLOMON VENTURES A, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS DOMINGO CAYABYAB, ET AL.

Fourth Cause of Action: Promissory Fraud The elements of fraud 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.” (Charnay v. Cobert (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 170, 184.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ESPINOZA VS DIVINO PLASTIC SURGERY INC

Defendants' demurrer to the fourth cause of action for intentional misrepresentation and the fifth cause of action for promissory fraud in plaintiffs' complaint is overruled. Defendants' motion to strike paragraph 89 of the seventh cause of action for unfair business practices is granted, with leave to amend. Any amended complaint must be filed and served within 10 days of service of the final ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

ESPINOZA VS DIVINO PLASTIC SURGERY INC

Defendants' demurrer to the fourth cause of action for intentional misrepresentation and the fifth cause of action for promissory fraud in plaintiffs' complaint is overruled. Defendants' motion to strike paragraph 89 of the seventh cause of action for unfair business practices is granted, with leave to amend. Any amended complaint must be filed and served within 10 days of service of the final ruling.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

DENISE M. BASILE VS VALERIE J. BASILE

“‘Promissory fraud’ is a subspecies of the action for fraud and deceit. A promise to do something necessarily implies the intention to perform; hence, where a promise is made without such intention, there is an implied misrepresentation of fact that may be actionable fraud.” (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

ACMC FINANACE AND TRADE LLC VS ENERGY TRADING COMPANY LLC, ET AL.

The demurrer to the cause of action for promissory fraud is therefore sustained. Leave to amend is granted if and only if Plaintiff can allege facts showing fraudulent intent. Similar to the above, Plaintiff fails to allege facts showing Rogers knew (or, in connection with the negligent misrepresentation claim, had reason to believe) his statements were false at the time he made them.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

FINCH VS PARKER

"Promissory fraud" is a subspecies of the action for fraud and deceit. Id. "A promise to do something necessarily implies the intention to perform; hence, where a promise is made without such intention, there is an implied misrepresentation of fact that may be actionable fraud." Id. Fraud must be pled specifically; general and conclusory allegations do not suffice. Id. at 645.

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BERT WASHINGTON VS TEJAS A. DOSHI; ET AL

Thus, Plaintiff has stated sufficient facts to state a cause of action for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing and the demurrer to the second cause of action is overruled. 3rd Cause of Action for Promissory Fraud As to the third cause of action for Fraud, Defendants’ demurrer is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. Plaintiff fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KEITH TROY VS G DE COHEN INC ET AL

Likewise, Plaintiff’s causes of action for promissory fraud, fraud in the concealment, intentional fraud, and negligent misrepresentation could not succeed against these Defendants if Plaintiff’s relevant dealings were with Natural Ivy Foundation. Accordingly, for purposes of this motion, Defendants have shown a meritorious defense. Satisfactory Excuse Generally, when relying on the Court’s equitable power, a defendant must show that the default was the result of extrinsic fraud or mistake.

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

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

Promissory fraud must also be alleged with particularity. ((Ibid. .) The “particularity requirement necessitates pleading facts which ‘show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.’ [Citation omitted.]” (Lazar v. Superior Court, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 645 [emphasis in original].) The Court finds that the fraud cause of action has been adequately pleaded.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

TROY TRANG, ET AL. VS CC ROYAL SERVICES INC., ET AL.

“A cause of action for promissory fraud requires the plaintiff to allege that the promisor did not intend to perform at the time the promise was made, that the promise was intended to deceive and induce reliance, that it did induce reliance, and that this reliance resulted in damages.” (Fleet v. Bank of America (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1411.) The third and fourth causes of action are directed against L. Yin only. L.

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

LUTTEROTH VS PAULA

The First Amended Complaint in that case contains claims for declaratory relief, breach of contract, common counts, slander per se and promissory fraud against Juan Carlos Alacantar, Focus and Luis Gutierrez Romero. The Lutteroths are not parties to the action but they are mentioned in the FAC. The Focus defendants allegedly made false representations about building houses, showing plaintiffs completed projects that they had not competed and inducing Paula into three contracts.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LUTTEROTH VS PAULA

The First Amended Complaint in that case contains claims for declaratory relief, breach of contract, common counts, slander per se and promissory fraud against Juan Carlos Alacantar, Focus and Luis Gutierrez Romero. The Lutteroths are not parties to the action but they are mentioned in the FAC. The Focus defendants allegedly made false representations about building houses, showing plaintiffs completed projects that they had not competed and inducing Paula into three contracts.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LUTTEROTH VS PAULA

The First Amended Complaint in that case contains claims for declaratory relief, breach of contract, common counts, slander per se and promissory fraud against Juan Carlos Alacantar, Focus and Luis Gutierrez Romero. The Lutteroths are not parties to the action but they are mentioned in the FAC. The Focus defendants allegedly made false representations about building houses, showing plaintiffs completed projects that they had not competed and inducing Paula into three contracts.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

TNL CONSTRUCTION, INC. VS GEORGE MEKHJIAN ET AL

Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC) alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) work, labor, and services rendered; (3) foreclosure of mechanic’s lien; (4) quasi-contract – unjust enrichment; (5) promissory fraud; and (6) declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ANDREA LEHMAN VS U.S. LAW GROUP, ET AL.

Promissory Fraud: OVERRULED Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have insufficiently alleged the claim.

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2020

STUART LEE ZUBRICK VS SAHIBZADA AASIM AKHTAR

Defendant filed the operative Second Amended Cross Complaint (“SAXC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) promissory fraud; (3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) interference with contract; (5) interference with prospective economic advantage; (6) unfair business practices under California Business and Professions Code, Section 17200 et seq.; and (7) unjust enrichment.

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 36     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.