Promissory Fraud in California

because there was purportedly a bargained for exchange; and (8) that the cause of action for promissory fraud sufficiently alleges intend to defraud.

Now, Plaintiff has alleged two separate causes of action: one for promissory fraud and one for concealment. As for the promissory fraud claim, the Court finds it to be adequately pled.

The Cross-Defendants demurrer as to the second cause of action for promissory fraud is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. Cross-Defendants to give notice.

Therefore, this amount is not consequential damages from the promissory fraud, but consequential damages from the breach of contract. To the extent the promissory fraud cause of action alleges that plaintiff executed the NDA and that plaintiff would not have executed the NDA had it been aware of the facts (Complaint ¶ 33), plaintiff is required to plead facts with particularity showing consequential damages as a result of the above.

On October 21, 2020, Plaintiffs EZ Investment, LLC and Pinghua Bian commenced this action against Defendants Howard Wu and Taylor Woods for (1) breach of written guaranty; (2) breach of written guaranty; and (3) promissory fraud. On January 8, 2021, Defendants filed the instant demurrer to the third cause of action for promissory fraud. ANALYSIS: I. Demurrer A.

The court finds the implied warranties with respect to the bread can be promises on which a claim for promissory fraud is based and, therefore, plaintiff has pled a cause of action for promissory fraud. The court overrules defendant’s demurrer.

DURIE PLAINTIFF JANSSEN BIOPHARMA, LLC’S DEMURRER TO CROSS CLAIM AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF PROMISSORY FRAUD TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Janssen Biopharma, LLC’s Demurrer to Cross Claim and Affirmative Defense of Promissory Fraud (Demurrer) is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 1.

The demurrer is sustained as to the fraud, promissory fraud and breach of fiduciary duty causes of action for cross-complaints to allege the amount of damages sought per CCP 425.10. Prayer seeking "not less than the minimum jurisdiction" is not sufficient. Demurrer is otherwise overruled. Second Amended Cross-Complaint alleges sufficient facts to state causes of action for fraud, promissory fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and elder abuse.

Both writ and the order expressly categorize the promissory fraud claim not as one of the employment claims, but as one subject to arbitration. This suggests that both courts intended this promissory fraud claim as a whole to be arbitrated. There is no indication that any parts of the claim could be a part of employment claims.

Here, the Complaint sufficiently alleges ultimate facts of promissory fraud, as analyzed with regard to the demurrer. Furthermore, punitive damages may be awarded on the theory of promissory fraud. Glendale Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Marina View Heights Dev. Co. (1977) 66 Cal. App. 3d 101, 133. Therefore, there is no basis to strike allegations regarding punitive damages.

This meets the requirements for a claim of promissory fraud. FUTHER PROCEEDINGS. Defendants must file an answer on or before 1/27/21.

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.

On 7/16/20, Plaintiff Castaic Village Center, LLC filed this action for breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation, declaratory relief and promissory fraud.

Consequently, plaintiff has failed to state causes of action for breach of contract and promissory fraud. For the same reason, plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action for dual tracking under Civil Code section 2924.11. Lastly, plaintiff has not stated a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress because she has not pleaded any outrageous conduct by the lender. For the third cause of action, plaintiff alleged promissory fraud, but the demurrer addressed promissory estoppel.

Promissory Fraud 5. Negligence RULING : The demurrer is placed off calendar. On 8/11/23, Plaintiffs Talal Altamini and Manking Essential, Inc. (Plaintiffs) filed this action against Defendant Lief Organics, LLC (Defendant) for: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Fraudulent Deceit, (3) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (4) Promissory Fraud and (5) Negligence.

An action for promissory fraud may lie where a defendant fraudulently induces the plaintiff to enter into a contract.” (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638 (internal citations omitted).) Here, Defendants argue that the promissory fraud cause of action is “a breach-of-contract claim masquerading as a tort claim” and the FAC fails to sufficiently allege intent. (Dem. at 4-7.)

Therefore, Plaintiffs argue that they have successfully stated a claim for promissory fraud. To support the claim for promissory fraud, Plaintiffs cite the holding in M oncada v. West Coast Quartz Corp. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 768, stating that “[p]romissory fraud is a subspecies of the action for fraud and deceit.

Ruling: Motion 1): Ruling: Defendants’ demurrer is overruled as to the second cause of action for promissory fraud and sustained as to the third cause of action for intentional misrepresentation. Plaintiff shall have 15 days leave to amend to address the issues in this ruling. Civil Code section 1710 defines one species of deceit as “[a] promise, made without any intention of performing it.”

Plaintiffs are given to May 10 to file a first amended complaint, amending only as to a promissory fraud cause of action. In the event that plaintiffs decline to amend, defendant’s answer to the remainder of the original complaint will be due two weeks after the amendment deadline.

The FAC alleges two causes of action, brought by both plaintiffs against BMB and the Doe defendants, the first for promissory fraud and the second for aiding and abetting the promissory fraud. Defendant BMB demurred, arguing among other things that the actions for promissory fraud were barred by the parol evidence rule. The court overruled the demurrer on December 8, 2011, and ordered BMB to answer.

Promissory fraud must be alleged with particularity. (Id.) Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action for promissory fraud against Defendant. It appears that although Plaintiffs have alleged separate causes of action for promissory fraud and intentional misrepresentation, Plaintiffs’ promissory fraud cause of action still improperly combines allegations as to intentional representations and false promises.

Although leave to amend is grant, Plaintiff is urged that before proceeding to carefully consider whether evidentiary support exists to allege promissory fraud. Plaintiffis reminded that something more than merely failingto perform is required to prove promissory fraud. (See Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 481.)

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.

Demurrer is OVERRULED. 2ND CAUSE OF ACTION 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.

Defendant/Cross-Complainant must allege the following basic elements to support a cause of action for promissory fraud: 1.

The 7 th cause of action states a claim for promissory fraud. Houck does not allege mere nonperformance. Houck alleges the Bakers promised to indemnify Houck without the intent to perform, which is the essence of a promissory fraud claim. See FAXC, ¶53. Houck also alleges when the promise was made and how—12-4-18 in a written Second Amendment to the original construction contract. See FAXC, ¶67.

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.

The allegation complained about is contained within the promissory fraud cause of action. Promissory fraud is subject to strict pleading standards. Plaintiffs argue that they only need to plead ultimate facts. Here, in addition to paragraph 15, Plaintiff pleads promissory fraud in paragraphs 14, and 16-19 of the complaint. Paragraph 14 reincorporates the previous allegations in the complaint.

“Promissory fraud is a subspecies of fraud, and an action may lie where a defendant fraudulently induces the plaintiff to enter into a contract, by making promises he does not intend to keep.” (Missakian v. Amusement Indus., Inc. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 630, 653.) “‘[T]he intent element of promissory fraud entails more than proof of an unkept promise or mere failure of performance.’” (Id. at 654.)

In response, Plaintiffs explain that these alleged misrepresentations are actionable under a promissory fraud theory. “ ‘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.

Fourth Cause of Action (Promissory Fraud). The elements of promissory fraud are: (1) a promise was made regarding a material fact; (2) the promisor lacked any intention to perform at the time of making the promise, (3) the promise was made with intent to deceive or to induce the party to whom it was made to enter into the agreement; (4) the party to whom it was made relied on the promise; (5) the party making the promise did not perform; and (6) the party to whom the promise was made was injured.

Although the operative complaint entitles the subject cause of action as Fraudulent Inducement, Plaintiff also includes a claim for promissory fraud. [Sec. Amend. Comp., ¶ 12.] 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 , supra , 12 Cal.4th at p. 638.)

Neither allegation supports a contention that there was promissory fraud at the time the Note and Agreement were signed by ABE that can be attributed to the individuals or Avakian Engineering. Paragraph 8 is no help either because it only alleges a fraudulent transfer, not facts showing promissory fraud at the time the Note and Agreement were signed. Because the SAC has not pled promissory fraud with the requisite specificity, the demurrer to the second cause of action is sustained.

However, the claim of promissory fraud is not at odds with this general principle, as the alleged fraud is directed to individuals who were not themselves parties to the underlying settlement agreement. By asserting a claim for promissory fraud against the defendants in this action, Plaintiff is not necessarily seeking to set aside the settlement agreement, even if the fraud is related to the settlement.

Finally, Plaintiff seeks leave to add a cause of action for promissory fraud. The Motion, however, does not explain why a cause of action for promissory fraud based on the credit card chargeback should be permitted. The Court ruled on the demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint that the fraud cause of action, which referred to the credit card chargeback, was insufficient. (Minute Order, 08/08/22, pp. 2-3.) Plaintiff admits that there are no new facts regarding this cause of action. ( Id . at ¶7.)

Plaintiff clearly intends to plead a promissory fraud theory. To do that, Plaintiff needs to properly plead the contract (see above) and the lack of intent to perform on it. Beckwith v. Dahl (2012) 205 Cal.App.4 th 1039, 1060. Unless Plaintiff identifies some material misrepresentation other than an intent to perform on the terms of the contract, the second and third causes of action should be omitted from any future pleading.

“‘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.’

If Plaintiff does not attach the "signed document," then its terms must be alleged verbatim. 2) Fraud (Promissory Fraud) : SUSTAINED The elements of a promissory fraud claim include: 1) a promise made regarding a material fact; 2) promisor's lack of any intention of performing at the time of making the promise, based upon specific factual circumstances beyond contract breach which infer a contemporaneous intent not to perform; 3) the promise was made with intent to deceive or to induce the party

To sufficiently plead that a defendant made a promise, as required for promissory fraud, the complaint must state facts which show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered. The falsity of a promise, as required for promissory fraud, is sufficiently pled with a general allegation the promise was made without an intention of performance. (Id.)

Reason: This is a demurrer to the third cause of action (promissory fraud) of the third amended complaint (TAC). "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.

Cross-complainant has had an opportunity to plead the elements of a promissory fraud claim without success. Cross-complainants' breach of the agreement to pay rent does not ipso facto constitute promissory fraud. It is clear that the facts alleged cannot constitute promissory fraud as a matter of law.

Demurrer to first cause of action (promissory fraud): Sustain without leave to amend. This cause of action for promissory fraud is barred by res judicata and the statute of limitations. 3. Demurrer to third cause of action (unjust enrichment): Overrule. Unjust enrichment is neither a cause of action nor a remedy. However, technically there is still a fraud cause of action against Valentine that would support the remedy of restitution.

22CV403850 AATISHRAJ KALAWADE vs CHITRANGNA Defendant’s demurrer to the eighth cause of action for CHAUHAN promissory fraud is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. See below.

22CV403850 AATISHRAJ KALAWADE vs CHITRANGNA Defendant’s demurrer to the eighth cause of action for CHAUHAN promissory fraud is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. See below.

22CV403850 AATISHRAJ KALAWADE vs CHITRANGNA Defendant’s demurrer to the eighth cause of action for CHAUHAN promissory fraud is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. See below.

22CV403850 AATISHRAJ KALAWADE vs CHITRANGNA Defendant’s demurrer to the eighth cause of action for CHAUHAN promissory fraud is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. See below.

22CV403850 AATISHRAJ KALAWADE vs CHITRANGNA Defendant’s demurrer to the eighth cause of action for CHAUHAN promissory fraud is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. See below.

22CV403850 AATISHRAJ KALAWADE vs CHITRANGNA Defendant’s demurrer to the eighth cause of action for CHAUHAN promissory fraud is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. See below.

22CV403850 AATISHRAJ KALAWADE vs CHITRANGNA Defendant’s demurrer to the eighth cause of action for CHAUHAN promissory fraud is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. See below.

22CV403850 AATISHRAJ KALAWADE vs CHITRANGNA Defendant’s demurrer to the eighth cause of action for CHAUHAN promissory fraud is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. See below.

22CV403850 AATISHRAJ KALAWADE vs CHITRANGNA Defendant’s demurrer to the eighth cause of action for CHAUHAN promissory fraud is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. See below.

22CV403850 AATISHRAJ KALAWADE vs CHITRANGNA Defendant’s demurrer to the eighth cause of action for CHAUHAN promissory fraud is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. See below.

22CV403850 AATISHRAJ KALAWADE vs CHITRANGNA Defendant’s demurrer to the eighth cause of action for CHAUHAN promissory fraud is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. See below.

22CV403850 AATISHRAJ KALAWADE vs CHITRANGNA Defendant’s demurrer to the eighth cause of action for CHAUHAN promissory fraud is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. See below.

22CV403850 AATISHRAJ KALAWADE vs CHITRANGNA Defendant’s demurrer to the eighth cause of action for CHAUHAN promissory fraud is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. See below.

22CV403850 AATISHRAJ KALAWADE vs CHITRANGNA Defendant’s demurrer to the eighth cause of action for CHAUHAN promissory fraud is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. See below.

22CV403850 AATISHRAJ KALAWADE vs CHITRANGNA Defendant’s demurrer to the eighth cause of action for CHAUHAN promissory fraud is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. See below.

22CV403850 AATISHRAJ KALAWADE vs CHITRANGNA Defendant’s demurrer to the eighth cause of action for CHAUHAN promissory fraud is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. See below.

22CV403850 AATISHRAJ KALAWADE vs CHITRANGNA Defendant’s demurrer to the eighth cause of action for CHAUHAN promissory fraud is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. See below.

22CV403850 AATISHRAJ KALAWADE vs CHITRANGNA Defendant’s demurrer to the eighth cause of action for CHAUHAN promissory fraud is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. See below.

22CV403850 AATISHRAJ KALAWADE vs CHITRANGNA Defendant’s demurrer to the eighth cause of action for CHAUHAN promissory fraud is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. See below.

22CV403850 AATISHRAJ KALAWADE vs CHITRANGNA Defendant’s demurrer to the eighth cause of action for CHAUHAN promissory fraud is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. See below.

22CV403850 AATISHRAJ KALAWADE vs CHITRANGNA Defendant’s demurrer to the eighth cause of action for CHAUHAN promissory fraud is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. See below.

PROMISSORY FRAUD ADEQUATELY ALLEGED. CONVERSION ADEQUATELY ALLEGED. (JH)

Conclusion The Court SUSTAINS demurrers for Promissory Fraud, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, and Unfair Business Practice. The Court OVERRULES demurrers for Unjust Enrichment.

An action for promissory fraud may lie where a defendant fraudulently induces the plaintiff to enter into a contract. ( Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.)

Overrule as to the first (promissory fraud/misrepresentation), third (negligence) and fourth (UCL) causes of action against Big Wood Builders, and the first (promissory fraud/misrepresentation) and second (Bus. & Prof., § 7160) causes of action against David Wood, individually. Sustain without leave to amend as to the fifth cause of action (CLRA) as to Big Wood Builders and David Wood.

Defendant also demurs to the third cause of action for promissory fraud on the grounds that the SAC fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. Defendant also specially demurs to the third cause of action for promissory fraud on the grounds of uncertainty. “‘Promissory fraud’ is a subspecies of the action for fraud and deceit.

Promissory Fraud Plaintiff’s allegations appear to be fraud based on a false promise made without intent to perform, though it is labeled in the Complaint with a heading of “FRAUD”. (See Civ. Code, § 1573, subd. (4).) The body of the second cause of action appears to mean “promissory fraud”.

BACKGROUND: This action arises out of allegations that the defendants committed promissory fraud and breached guaranty agreements regarding promissory notes in the amount of $400,000.00 and $136,000.00, plus interest. (Complaint, ¶¶ 7-12, 15-21.) On October 21, 2020, Plaintiffs EZ Investment, LLC and Pinghua Bian commenced this action against Defendants Howard Wu and Taylor Woods for (1) breach of written guaranty; (2) breach of written guaranty; and (3) promissory fraud.

Plaintiff alleges promissory fraud against Defendants. According to Plaintiff, Defendants had no intention of paying for the construction services rendered under the parties’ agreement when the agreement was executed. See FAC, ¶33. Mere breach of a promise is insufficient to establish promissory fraud See Riverisland Cold Storage, Inc. v.

CACI 1902 “’Promissory fraud’ is a subspecies of the action for fraud and deceit. A promise to do something 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 vs.

THE DEMURRER TO THE 5TH C/A FOR PROMISSORY FRAUD IS SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. THE MOTION TO STRIKE THE PRAYER FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES IN THE 4TH C/A IS GRANTED. (JH)

Such allegations are sufficient to state the 5th cause of action for promissory fraud. See Engalla (1997) 15 C4th 951, 973-974; Tenzer (1985) 39 C3d 18, 30. As such, the demurrer to the 5th cause of action is overruled. Fraud is a sufficient basis for an award of punitive damages. CC 3294(a), (c)(3). Since Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged its cause of action for promissory fraud, it has also sufficiently alleged a basis for punitive damages in relation therewith.

As with any other form of fraud , each element of a promissory fraud claim must be alleged with particularity. [Citation.] ( Rossberg v. Bank of Am., N.A . (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1498.) Moving Parties demur to the First Cause of Action for promissory fraud on the grounds that the FAC fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Third Cause of Action for Promissory Fraud In its third cause of action, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant requested a loan and then did not repay the loan. This claim for promissory fraud is a type of fraud based on false promises.

Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged all elements to support a claim for fraud in the inducement or promissory fraud.

The demurrer to the promissory fraud cause of action is overruled. Plaintiff has pleaded the necessary elements for promissory fraud, and this includes an agency allegation against Highland. This may not survive at either summary judgment or trial, but for the present, it is sufficient to survive a pleading challenge.

The Demurrer is sustained with leave to amend as to the 4th Cause of Action (Promissory Fraud). The Amended Complaint fails to allege specificity as to the alleged misrepresentations. The Demurrer is overruled as to the remaining claims. The Motion to Strike is moot in light of the ruling on the 4th Cause of Action for Fraud.

The Demurrer is sustained with leave to amend as to the 4th Cause of Action (Promissory Fraud). The Amended Complaint fails to allege specificity as to the alleged misrepresentations. The Demurrer is overruled as to the remaining claims. The Motion to Strike is moot in light of the ruling on the 4th Cause of Action for Fraud.

Twenty-First Cause of Action for Promissory Fraud For similar reasons as the fraud cause of action, Defendant contends the promissory fraud claim also fails. Promissory fraud is a subspecies of fraud. An action for promissory fraud will lie when a defendant fraudulently induces the plaintiff to enter into a contract by making a promise without any intention of performing on that promise. (Civ. Code §§ 1572, 1710.)

The claims asserted by Petitioner in this dispute—i.e., breach of contract, account stated, book account, quantum meruit, and promissory fraud—are covered by this agreement, as they all arise in connection with Petitioner’s accounting services and the charges Respondent allegedly incurred in connection with those services. Although Petitioner asserts promissory fraud and seeks punitive damages, this is essentially a collections case, a dispute encompassed by the arbitration agreement.

This is a factual argument, and not a legal argument to be made at demurrer. b. 6th cause of action (promissory fraud): Sustained with leave to amend. Among other things, promissory fraud requires knowingly false statements that the other party justifiably relied upon to his or her detriment. Defendant seems to argue that plaintiff never intended to make court appearances.

The court finds the allegations are sufficiently specific, and allege a cause of action for promissory fraud. On demurrer, Defendants contend that the claim alleges tort damages for what is a contract claim. An action for promissory fraud may lie where a defendant fraudulently induces a plaintiff to enter into a contract. In such cases, the plaintiff's claim does not depend upon whether the defendant's promise is ultimately enforceable as a contract.

On 8/11/23, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendant for: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Fraudulent Deceit, (3) Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (4) Promissory Fraud and (5) Negligence. After attempts to meet and confer regarding the issues Defendant had with the complaint were unsuccessful, on 11/20/23, Defendant filed and served a demurrer to the original complaint.

To allege a claim for promissory fraud, a party must state how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the false promise was made. ( Beckwith v. Dahl (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1060.) Further, the party must allege specific factual circumstances that imply a contemporaneous intent not to perform the promise. ( Hills Transportation Co. v. Southwest Forest Ind., Inc. (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 702, 707.)

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

These allegations are sufficient such that the general and special Demurrers is overruled. 2nd COA: PROMISSORY FRAUD The elements of fraud are: (a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity; (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage. Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal. 4th 631, 638. Promissory fraud is a subspecies of the action for fraud and deceit. Id.

On January 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint alleging causes of action for (1) breach of contract, and (2) promissory fraud. Demurrer Defendants demur to the Complaint for uncertainty and failure to state sufficient facts. Defendants demur to the first cause of action because Defendant HVH Insurance Services, Inc. is not a party to the subject contract.

Coeur Sports argues Vomax has not adequately alleged a misrepresentation regarding an existing fact or promissory fraud. While a failure to perform a contractual promise is, without more, insufficient to establish a fraud cause of action, Vomax alleged Coeur Sports made multiple promises with no intent to perform, adequate to allege misrepresentation. Cross-complaint ¶¶9, 26. DENIED.

Defendant demurs to the Fifth cause of action for promissory fraud. This is a new claim. Promissory fraud or false promise is a subspecies of fraud/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.

To the extent plaintiff is attempting to allege promissory fraud, however, the cause of action is adequate. "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.

Cross-Complainant asserts a promissory fraud claim which was not subject to demurrer. A properly pleaded fraud claim will itself support recovery of punitive damages; no allegations of “malice” or intent to injure plaintiff are necessary. Stevens v. Superior Court. (St. Francis Med. Ctr.) (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 605, 610. Cross-Complainant also properly pleads retaliatory eviction under Civil Code § 1942.5, which expressly allow statutory penalties. Civil Code § 1942.5(f)(2).

On September 23, 2019, BEAR VALLEY filed its FAC adding promissory fraud in lieu of filing any Oppositions. BEILMAN filed a Demurrer as to the second and third causes of action for constructive fraud and promissory fraud. Based on the Memo of Ps & As, the demurrer is only to the constructive fraud and promissory fraud causes of action. Beilman is not demurring to the First Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty.

[TAC, ¶29] On these facts, Plaintiff has alleged causes of action for breach of contract and promissory fraud.

“As with any other form of fraud, each element of a promissory fraud claim must be alleged with particularity. (Rossberg v. Bank of America, N.A. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1498.) Capital Care contends that the second cause of action of the FACC (1) fails to allege the required factual specificity required for a promissory fraud claim, (2) fails to establish justifiable reliance for this claim, and (3) is barred by the economic loss rule.

Accordingly, the SAC sufficiently alleges the first element of promissory fraud, a false promise. However, defendant contends that the exhibits attached to the operative complaint contradict plaintiff’s allegations.

“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.