What is slander/disparagement of title?

Useful Rulings on Slander or Disparagement of Title

Recent Rulings on Slander or Disparagement of Title

HOMAYOUN LARIAN VS EDWARD CZUKER, ET AL.

Fourth Cause of Action: Slander of Title “Slander of title is effected by one who without privilege publishes untrue and disparaging statements with respect to the property of another under such circumstances as would lead a reasonable person to foresee that a prospective purchaser or lessee thereof might abandon his intentions. It is an invasion of the interest in the vendibility of property. . . . Damages usually consist of loss of a prospective purchaser.” (Phillips v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CYNTHIA MARIA RIBAS VS BEAU MONDE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

Ribas (Plaintiff) filed suit against Defendant Beau Monde Association and Sommer Adel Salam (Defendant Rodriguez), alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) libel per se, (4) slander per se, (5) fraud (false promise), (6) negligent misrepresentation, and (7) breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

CYNTHIA MARIA RIBAS VS BEAU MONDE ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

Ribas (Plaintiff) filed suit against Defendant Beau Monde Association and Sommer Adel Salam (Defendant Rodriguez), alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) libel per se, (4) slander per se, (5) fraud (false promise), (6) negligent misrepresentation, and (7) breach of fiduciary duty.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

CR CREATIVE SERVICES INC VS HAROLD BRIONES ET AL

“A slander that falls within the first four subdivisions of Civil Code section 46 is slander per se and require no proof of actual damages.” (Regalia v. The Nethercutt Collection (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 361, 367.) The third subdivision of section 46 requires proof that the statement would tend to harm one’s professional reputation: “3.

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS INC VS KMC LANDSCAPING SERVICES

The contractor subsequently sued the suppliers for libel, slander, and unfair business practices. The suppliers filed a special motion to strike which the trial court denied. The suppliers appealed. (Brown, supra, 137 Cal.App.4th at 1123-24.) On appeal, the suppliers contended that stop notices are generally subject to the litigation privilege. The appellate court concurred.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

EVAN ISRAEL BRENNER VS MIKA JAYMES INC ET AL

Civil Code section 3425.3 provides as follows: “No person shall have more than one cause of action for damages for libel or slander or invasion of privacy or any other tort founded upon any single publication or exhibition or utterance, such as any one issue of a newspaper or book or magazine or any one presentation to an audience or any one broadcast over radio or television or any one exhibition of a motion picture.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

ANDREW M. EGBE VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) fraud, (2) wrongful foreclosure, (3) quiet title, (4) declaratory relief, (5) slander of title, (6) slander of credit, (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (8) cancellation of instruments, and (9) unfair business practices. The Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows. In August 2005, Plaintiff purchased real property located at 3539 South Cochran Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90016 (Property). (Compl. ¶ 13.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

CITY OF SAN JOSE V. FALCOCCHIA

Constitution; (6) violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1983; (7) invasion of privacy under article I, section I of the California Constitution; (8) Bane Act violations; (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (10) unfair and deceptive business practices; and (11) slander of title. The City subsequently demurred to all of the claims asserted in the Falcocchia’s cross- complaint on the ground of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 43010, subd. (e).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

STEVEN POWERS VS MARCOS VIVIAN, ET AL.

Sixth Cause of Action: Slander of Title The elements of the tort of slander of title are: “(1) publication, (2) absence of justification, (3) falsity and (4) direct pecuniary loss.” (Truck Ins. Exch. v. Bennett (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 75, 84 (Truck Ins.).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ROSEMARY WOODS VS RAZ INVESTMENTS,INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Slander of Title (11th COA) The elements of a cause of action for slander of title are “(1) a publication, (2) which is without privilege or justification, (3) which is false, and (4) which causes direct and immediate pecuniary loss.” (Manhattan Loft, LLC v. Mercury Liquors, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1040, 1051.) Plaintiff failed to allege facts to establish a cause of action for slander of title against Raz Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

LAWRENCE CHIBUEZE, ET AL. VS TELOPS INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL.

The Complaint alleges causes of action for: Fraud by intentional misrepresentation and concealment; Negligent hiring and supervision; Slander of title; Trespass to land; Promissory estoppel; and Unfair competition (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.) Plaintiffs allege causes of action three, four, and six against Ygrene.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FELICIA JACINTA ANARO VS MASON-MCDUFFIE MORTGAGE CORPORATION AND U.S. BANK, N.A. ET AL.

Slander of Title: The judicially noticed material facts establish that U.S. Bank’s and MERS’s actions in recording the several notices of default and notices of trustee sale were privileged under Civil Code section 47 in that the deed of trust and subsequent assignments identified U.S. Bank as the beneficiary of the deed of trust and MERS as its agent.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Judge

    George J. Abdallah

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

RENATO ROBISON VS MARIANAH CREVIOSERAT

By way of background, on February 28, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in this action against Defendant Mariana Crevoiserat (“Mariana”), alleging causes of action for libel per se, slander per se, false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), libel, slander, and invasion of privacy.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

CLODA JONES VS NAOMI CAMPBELL, ET AL.

Factual Background This is an action for slander of title and cancellation of cloud on title. The Complaint alleges as follows. Plaintiff Cloda A. Jones (“Jones”) is the beneficiary of the Ogilvie Family Trust. Defendant Naomi Campbell (“Campbell”) offered to help Jones administer this trust after the deaths of Jones’ parents, the Ogilvies. (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 12.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

CHICUACE CHICUACE VS MR. JIMMY A. GOMEZ, ET AL.

ANALYSIS: On September 6, 2019, Plaintiff Chicuace Chicuace (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint in this action for slander against Defendants Jimmy A. Gomez and Leonard Mata (“Defendants”). The Summons was issued on December 31, 2019. On March 13, 2019, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint. To date, no opposition has been filed.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

2009 WELLINGTON ROAD, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS MICHELLE HAGUE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

This argument relates to the third cause of action for slander of title. However, the OSC re: PI is based on the first and second causes of action for declaratory relief and wrongful foreclosure. Defendant cites no authority that the privilege under Civil Code section 2924(b) bars injunctive relief with respect to improper or wrongful foreclosure proceedings.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AASIR AZZARMI VS WENDY CHAU, ET AL.

Relihan, Clifford Schwenker, Hana Bruce, Kristina Keifer, Jazzmaine Francis, Susan Judson, Christ Catania, and Charlotte Ling for (1) defamation-libel, (2) defamation-libel per se, (3) defamation-slander, (4) defamation-slander per se, (5) defamation at common law and pursuant to Civil Code §46, (6) IIED, (7) trade libel, (8) violation of Bus. & Prof.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

MARIELOU MENDOZA VS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC ET AL

The elements for a cause of action for slander are: 1) false and unprivileged publication; 2) orally uttered to third persons; and 3) naturally tending directly to injure a person, in respect to office, profession, trade or business or special damages. Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 720. Defendants argue that the defamation claim is time barred. The statute of limitations for defamation is one year. (CCP § 340(c).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

This argument relates to the third cause of action for slander of title. However, the OSC re: PI is based on the first and second causes of action for declaratory relief and wrongful foreclosure. Defendant cites no authority that the privilege under Civil Code section 2924(b) bars injunctive relief with respect to improper or wrongful foreclosure proceedings.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

2009 WELLINGTON ROAD, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS MICHELLE HAGUE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

This argument relates to the third cause of action for slander of title. However, the OSC re: PI is based on the first and second causes of action for declaratory relief and wrongful foreclosure. Defendant cites no authority that the privilege under Civil Code section 2924(b) bars injunctive relief with respect to improper or wrongful foreclosure proceedings.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

COURTNEY HAYES VS FERMIN VASQUEZ, ET AL.

In opposition, plaintiff argues that the statute of limitations does not bar this claim because if Reyes had not slandered plaintiff, the slander would not have passed to Brewer and Wells, or the people they subsequently told. Further, plaintiff argues, the defamation occurred in the scope of employment.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

MACK BROWN VS WESTERN PROGRESSIVE, ET AL.

Slander of Title 11. Declaratory Relief 12. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 13. Constructive Fraud Defendants concurrently move to strike all prayers for punitive damages and associated allegations. SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS The complaint is replete with unsupported legal conclusions which the court does not deem true even on demurrer. These include, but are not limited to, allegations of tolling due to concealment and malice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

ESCAMILLA V. PERRY

The second cause of action for Slander Per Se remains. The third cause of action cause of action for Trade Libel can be viewed as an alternative ground for relief to the second cause of action. Even if the effect of striking paragraph is to eliminate the third cause of action, it does not prevent relief for the conduct of disparaging plaintiff and his business. The striking of the third cause of action because Plaintiff still has to prove that Defendants engaged in the disparaging conduct.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

MOORE VS. MOORE

Sixth Cause of Action for Slander of Title: Under California law, a claim for slander of title has four elements: (1) “a publication;” (2) “which is without privilege or justification and thus with malice, express or implied;” (3) “is false, either knowingly so or made without regard to its truthfulness;” and (4) “causes direct and immediate pecuniary loss.” (Howard v. Schaniel (1980) 113 Cal. App. 3d 256, 263; Manhattan Loft, LLC v. Mercury Liquors, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal. App. 4th 1040, 1051.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

CHERYL COLE VS. RICK HAMPTON

Action under CCP § 340(c) Plaintiff does not state whether she is alleging an action for libel, slander or false imprisonment. She does allege in Paragraph 12 of the Statement of Claim that in April 2016, Defendant Branden made statements against Plaintiff to a “man.” But there are no allegations against Defendant Hampton. At any rate, the statute of limitations for bringing such action is one year. The claim is thus time-barred. Demurrer to this cause of action is sustained without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 67     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.