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
(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).)
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.
Dec 04, 2020
Collections
Collections
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Dec 04, 2020
Contract
Breach
Los Angeles County, CA
“‘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.)
Dec 02, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Dec 01, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Dec 01, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Nov 25, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Nov 19, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.
Nov 18, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
Fourth Cause of Action: Promissory Fraud Defendant asserts that the fourth cause of action for Promissory Fraud fails because there is no promise.
Nov 16, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Nov 12, 2020
Riverside County, CA
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.
Nov 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
"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.
Nov 06, 2020
Ventura County, CA
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.
Nov 06, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Nov 05, 2020
Riverside County, CA
• 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.
Nov 04, 2020
Riverside County, CA
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.
Nov 02, 2020
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Nov 02, 2020
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Nov 01, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.”
Nov 01, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.)
Oct 29, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
“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.
Oct 29, 2020
Orange County, CA
Fourth Cause of Action: Promissory Fraud Defendant contends that the fourth cause of action for Promissory Fraud fails because there is no promise.
Oct 27, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Oct 27, 2020
H. Jay Ford
Los Angeles County, CA
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
Oct 23, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Oct 22, 2020
Orange County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
