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

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

Promissory Fraud (5th cause of action) Promissory fraud is a subspecies of a fraud and deceit claim. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638; Civ. Code, § 1710(4).) “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.) An action for promissory fraud may lie where a defendant fraudulently induces the plaintiff to enter into a contract.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ZETA GLOBAL CORP. VS SOCIALCOM INC.

Case No. 19SMCV01066 Hearing Date December 4, 2020 Cross-Defendant Steinberg’s Demurrer to Fourth Cause of Action in Cross-Complaint AX’s cross-complaint alleges Zeta’s CEO Steinberg engaged in promissory fraud by making false representations to induce AX into forming the agreement. Steinberg demurs to the promissory fraud cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

LISA FANCHER VS LOUIS OR "LOUICHI" MAYORGA

“‘Promissory fraud’ is a subspecies of 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.” (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 973-974.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

XIAOXING ZHANG VS ZHE ZHANG, ET AL.

procedural history Plaintiff filed the Complaint on March 16, 2020, alleging eleven causes of action: Breach of contract Breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing Promissory fraud Intentional misrepresentation Concealment Violation of Business Code §§ 17200 et seq. Violation of Business Code § 7031 Violation of Business Code §§ 7100 et seq.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CALIFORNIA PARTNERS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ROBERT J. HUIZENGA

PROMISSORY FRAUD Defendant finally argues that the second cause of action for promissory fraud is defective because it is not pleaded with specificity. (Demurrer at pp. 7–8.) The elements of fraud are: (1) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (2) knowledge of falsity (scienter); (3) intent to defraud or induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) damages. (See Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GENESIS MEDIA LLC VS OWNZONES MEDIA NETWORK INC ET AL

Ownzones’ cross-complaint alleges four causes of action for: (1) breach of contract, (2) promissory fraud, (3) intentional misrepresentation and (4) misrepresentation. On February 28, 2020, the Honorable Georgina T. Rizk granted Ownzones and Goman’s Motion to Compel Third Party, Alex Nahai (“Nahai”), to produce documents and a privilege log. Sanctions were also awarded against Nahai in the amount of $3,500.

  • Hearing

    Nov 25, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DEARING VS. CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY

Finally, Plaintiff argues promissory fraud in that Defendant did not disclose its relationship with the AAA, but as set forth above, this argument is not well taken. All in all, the Court finds there is not sufficient procedural or substantive unconscionability to warrant a denial of this motion on that basis.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

SAM SEGAL ET AL VS BIDDING UNLIMITED INC ET AL

On February 28, 2020, the Court granted BUI’s and Itkin’s motion for summary adjudication of the SAC’s third cause of action for promissory fraud. The Court also determined as a matter of law that the Note contains a usurious interest provision. On August 12, 2020, the Court granted the Segals’ motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to Itkin’s claim for treble damages because Itkin lacked standing to maintain that claim.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

HOWARD SMITH, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS WEST HILLS HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Fourth Cause of Action: Promissory Fraud Defendant asserts that the fourth cause of action for Promissory Fraud fails because there is no promise.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

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

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

SOFIA VERGARA VS NICHOLAS LOEB ET AL

Vergara’s complaint brings causes of action for: (1) Declaratory Judgment (2) Permanent Injunctive Relief (3) Breach of Contract (4) Promissory Fraud (5) Promissory Estoppel (dism. after decision not to amend) (6) Malicious Prosecution. (dism. after appeal) On April 14, 2017 Loeb filed a demurrer and motion to strike portions of the complaint. Loeb also filed an anti-SLAPP motion.

  • Hearing

    Nov 10, 2020

THOMAS A STABEN VS. IRA S SHORE INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE IRA S SHORE REVOCABLE TRUST DATED JANUARY 14 1997

"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.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

GENESIS MEDIA LLC VS OWNZONES MEDIA NETWORK INC ET AL

Ownzones’ cross-complaint alleges four causes of action for: (1) breach of contract, (2) promissory fraud, (3) intentional misrepresentation, and (4) misrepresentation. On June 9, 2020, Ownzones served Genesis and Defendants Alex Nahai and Alex Nahai Consulting Services, Inc. a Notice of Videotaped Deposition of Belmeko LLC’s Person Most Knowledgeable and Request for Production of Documents. The deposition was noticed for June 26, 2020 at Greenspoon Marder LLP in Las Vegas, Nevada.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PROPERTY AND CASUALTY VS CANO

The ninth cause of action for unfair business practices fails because Cano bases the claim on Cross-Defendants’ promissory fraud. However, as the court has previously ruled, Cano did not read the policy, which renders unjustifiable Cano’s alleged reliance on Cross-Defendants’ misrepresentations. Because Cano cannot set forth a claim for promissory fraud, this cause of action fails. (See Krantz v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

SEELEY VS ZENITH HOLMES LLC HEARING RE: DEMURRER TO 4TH AMENDED COMPLAINT OF KENNETH SEELEY BY INTEGRITY ESCROW INC, SHU LUU HOANG

• Plaintiffs allege, on information and belief, that these Escrow Misrepresentations, including in the Falsified Escrow Documents, were made by Hoang to the Trustees in August and September 2017 in the escrow documents, on behalf of Integrity Escrow, and without any intention to have the Escrow Defendants perform as promised in the escrows, such that the statements were misrepresentations and also promissory fraud.

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2020

JOSE GUADALUPE TREJO CHAVEZ, ET AL. VS CAMACHO AUTO SALES INC.

Lastly, Plaintiffs allege a promissory fraud theory (promise without intent to perform) that Camacho promised that the vehicle was not broken and was going to last more than 30 days. (Compl., ¶ FR-4.) Plaintiffs seek reimbursement of the loan amount paid of $29,000. (Compl., ¶ FR-7.) No other facts in support of the fraud claim are alleged in the body of the Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

JOSE GUADALUPE TREJO CHAVEZ, ET AL. VS CAMACHO AUTO SALES INC.

Lastly, Plaintiffs allege a promissory fraud theory (promise without intent to perform) that Camacho promised that the vehicle was not broken and was going to last more than 30 days. (Compl., ¶ FR-4.) Plaintiffs seek reimbursement of the loan amount paid of $29,000. (Compl., ¶ FR-7.) No other facts in support of the fraud claim are alleged in the body of the Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

RANCHO MADRINA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CHURCH

Third cause of action for promissory fraud. The third cause of action is for promissory fraud, which is a subspecies of fraud and deceit. Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 973-974. An action for promissory fraud may lie where a defendant fraudulently induces the plaintiff to enter into a written contract. Austin v. Medicis (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 577, 588.

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2020

SMITH VS. KVC GROUP, LLC.

DEMURRER 1st cause of action for Promissory Fraud (Civil Code, 1710(4)). Defendants demur to the 1st cause of action on the ground that it fails to state sufficient facts. Civil Code section 1710 defines one species of deceit as “[a] promise, made without any intention of performing it.”

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2020

SHU WU SUE CHUEH ET AL VS CAESAR GLOBAL ALLIANCE INC ET AL

Fifth Cause of Action – Promissory Fraud The fifth cause of action for promissory fraud alleges Cross-Defendants “agreed to invest more money pursuant to their pro-rata ownership interests” to improve the car wash. (SACC ¶ 47.) But they did not intend to perform that promise, Cross-Complainants relied on their promise by allowing Cross-Defendants to become shareholders, and Cross-Defendants broke their promise. (SACC ¶¶ 51, 52.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MAIN STREET ASSET SOLUTIONS, INC VS. TRINITY FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC

Promissory fraud” is a subspecies of 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. An action for promissory fraud may lie where a defendant fraudulently induces the plaintiff to enter into a contract.” Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 973−974; CACI 1902.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

HOWARD SMITH, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS WEST HILLS HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Fourth Cause of Action: Promissory Fraud Defendant contends that the fourth cause of action for Promissory Fraud fails because there is no promise.

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CRAIG ROSS, ET AL. VS SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, ET AL.

City of Carson (2019) 6 Cal.5th 610, 628 (protected statement in plaintiff’s complaint would not form the basis of promissory fraud claim but wrongful refusal to renew contract “surely could”); Laker v Board of Trustees (2019) 32 C.A.5th 745, 772 (772 (A defamation claim that challenged statements made in connection with a statutorily mandated investigation was based on protected conduct, but a claim for retaliation based on the decision to pursue allegedly meritless investigations was not); Sheley v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

IZUDDIN ABDULJAWAD VS MURAT EKICI, ET AL.

However, as Plaintiff’s cause of action alleges promissory fraud, the applicable interest rate is 7% rather than 10%. (See Civ. Code § 3289; Cal. Const. Art. 15 § 1). Dated: ____________________________ Gregory Alarcon Superior Court Judge

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

NPBEACH MARINA, LLC VS. RMS FRANCHISE GROUP, INC.

As alleged in the FACC and as set forth in RMS’ opposition, RMS appears to be alleging three counts of fraud – intentional misrepresentation, promissory fraud, and/or concealment. FACC, ¶¶ 10-11, 13-15, and 22-29; Opposition, 6:17-21, 7:8-10, and 7:19-8:5.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 40     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.