What is slander/disparagement of title?

Useful Resources for Slander or Disparagement of Title

Recent Rulings on Slander or Disparagement of Title

26-50 of 1890 results

JANE DOE VS JABARI SHELTON ET AL

On July 13, 2018, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Shelton filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Doe and Cross-Defendants Paul Barresi (“Barresi”) and Roes 1 through 10 for: (1) slander; (2) civil extortion; and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Shelton alleged that he did not commit misconduct.

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2021

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RASOOL ESKANDARI VS PROPERTY SPECIALISTS GROUP, INC. A NEVADA CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

., Sean Cohen, and Mehran Frozenfar, asserting causes of action for: 1) Breach of Contract; 2) Constructive Fraud; 3) Actual Fraud; 4) Conversion; 5) Unjust Enrichment; 6) Slander of Title; 7) Cancellation of Instruments; 8) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; 9) Violation of Business & Professions Code §17200; 10) Quiet Title; and 11) Declaratory Relief. Defendant Allstate Realty Group Inc. now seeks leave to file a cross-complaint as and against Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Dec 28, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

JOHNSON VS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

Plaintiff’s complaint states no separate causes of action supported by any facts, but lists a variety of theories of recovery, including breach of contract, violation of due process, discrimination, slander, defamation, and obstruction of justice. Plaintiff argues the property was taken without just compensation and she is entitled to $1,800 per month until possession is returned.

  • Hearing

    Dec 22, 2020

FRANCO BRESCIA VS. ELEONORA GRANATA JENKINSON

Next, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges only claims for slander pursuant to Civil Code, § 46, which refers to oral statements. Slander is defined as “a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered.” (Civil Code, § 46 [emphasis added].) As alleged by Plaintiff, Defendant made her oral statements in person at the September 25, 2017 meeting at 12:00 p.m. (Compl., ¶¶13, 19, 25.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOSEPH SASTIEL VS STEVE OROCIO

On September 23, 2020, Defendant filed a cross-complaint asserting causes of action for (1) Asbestos Property Damage; (2) Asbestos Personal Injury/Wrongful Death; (3) Intentional Bodily Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death; (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (5) Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death; (6) Civil Rights/Discrimination; (7) Defamation (Slander/Libel) (8) Contractual Fraud; (9) Tortious Interference; (10) Other Contract Dispute; (11) Construction Defect; and (12) Racketeering

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2020

FAZIO V. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP.

Plaintiffs Michael Fazio and Kim Fazio filed a 3rd amended complaint against defendant Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. and others asserting causes of action for cancellation of documents, fraud and slander of title related to the foreclosure sale of plaintiff’s real property in 2014.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

BENJAMIN COMIDI, ET AL. VS ETI EL-KISS MIZRAHI, ET AL.

The first amended complaint, filed July 22, 2020, alleges causes of action for: (1) fraud (intentional misrepresentation) against Mizrahi, Schmuel, Conquest, Red Dragon, Platinum, and Jain; (2) negligent misrepresentation against Mizrahi, Schmuel, Conquest, Red Dragon, Platinum, and Jain; (3) false promise against Mizrahi, Schmuel, Conquest, Red Dragon, Platinum, and Jain; (4) breach of fiduciary duty against Mizrahi and Conquest; (5) constructive fraud against Mizrahi and Conquest; (6) slander of title against

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ROYAL HOME HEALTHCARE AGENCY VS NOHO HOME HEALTH CARE ET AL.

The cross-complaint alleges causes of action for slander per se, defamation, negligence, and IIED. RULING: [No Opposition] Plaintiff Royal Healthcare Agency, Inc.’s UNOPPOSED Motion to Compel Defendant Elizabeth Hernandez’ Further responses to Interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant Elizabeth Hernandez is ordered to serve further verified responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One), which are signed by defendant or her legal representative and are verified.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2020

MORTGAGE EQUITY CONVERSION ASSET TRUST 2011-1 (AKA MORTGAGE EQUITY CONVERSION ASSET TRUST 2011-1, MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES 2011-1) BY U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS CO-TRUSTEE VS ISRAEL GONZALEZ, ET AL.

The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: Quiet Title; Cancellation of Instruments; Slander of Title; and Declaratory Relief. Defendant Ygrene demurs to the first, second, and fourth causes of action. The demurrer is unopposed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court sustains the demurrer with 20 days leave to amend. Standard A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law and raises only questions of law. (Schmidt v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ACOSTA V. VEA

The Causes of Action On September 11, 2020, plaintiffs filed their complaint alleging: Slander based on Edgar’s statement on June 8, 2020 accusing Maribel of pressuring Ernie to sign over the pink slips to three cars; Defamation per se based on same statement as 1st cause of action; Slander based on Edgar’s statement on June 8, 2020 that Sonny placed a bug in Ernie’s and Sophie’s Cell Phones and Home Phone; Defamation per se based on same statement as 3rd cause of action; Slander based on Edgar’s statement

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

MARC A. LAROCQUE VS. CHRISTINE LAROCQUE FRANZ, ET AL

Slander of title claim “may be prosecuted only by someone with an interest in the property. ‘An action for slander of title is maintainable only by one who possess[es] an estate or interest in the property.’ [Citation]” (Chao Fu, Inc. v. Chen (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 48, 58.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

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

Slander of Title: In his third cause of action, Jung seeks damages on the grounds that the recording of the NOD and NOTS has cast doubt on the LLC’s title to the Property. (FAC ¶¶ 40, 45.) Jung is not the Property owner. (FAC ¶ 3.) Therefore, Jung does not have standing to assert this claim. (See CACI 1730 (first element of slander of title claim is that defendant cast doubt upon plaintiff’s ownership of the property).)

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

SAINT ANDREWS EQUITIES LLC, A CALIFORNIA LLC VS CURRY PARKWAY L.P., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.

The complaint in intervention asserts a cause of action for disparagement of title and a cause of action for cancellation of instrument.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

MR BUILD HOME IMPROVEMENT COMPANY D.B.A. MR BUILD SOLAR ELECTRIC VS CALIN KEELEY

Plaintiff filed its initial Complaint on February 22, 2019, and thereafter filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on May 10, 2019, alleging ten causes of action for (1) Conversion, (2) Breach of Contract, (3) Property Damages, (4) Trespass to Chattel, (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (”IIED”), (6) Slander Per Se, (7) Libel, (8) Fraud, (9) ‘Tenacious’ Interference with Existing Contract, (10) Injunction – TRO.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

LEANDRA GONZALEZ, ET AL. VS VICTORIA VU, ET AL.

However, in their opposition, Plaintiffs failed to raise any argument as to any cause of action besides defamation/slander, and, even there, Plaintiffs only addressed these causes of action broadly, advancing an argument that “[m]aking a false accusation to a police officer is a criminal offense under Penal Code 148.5.” (Opp., 4: 13-17.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

SIRISUP VS. MATSUNO

Second Prong: Plaintiff’s Probability of Prevailing Defendant contends that plaintiffs cannot establish a probability of prevailing on the merits for Slander Per Se because the alleged defamatory statements were not sufficiently pled, are privileged, or are protected. Ann contends that she has made a prima facie showing of facts to support the third cause of action for Slander Per Se because the defamatory statements, including that Ann is an alcoholic, and has a mental illness, are all false.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

SIMMONDS VS. WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.

Markowitz (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 316, 336 (affirming directed verdict on slander of title claim and judgment notwithstanding the verdict on negligence claim). Civ. Code § 2924(d), specifically provides that the mailing, publication, and delivery of notices as required herein, and the performance of the procedures set forth in this article, shall constitute privileged communications within Civ. Code § 47.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

MESA WEST, INC. VS. PHUSTAEROUS, LTD.

“In an action for wrongful disparagement of title, a plaintiff may recover (1) the expense of legal proceedings necessary to remove the doubt cast by the disparagement, (2) financial loss resulting from the impairment of vendibility of the property, and (3) general damages for the time and inconvenience suffered by plaintiff in removing the doubt cast upon his property. (Rest., Torts § 633; Wright v. Rogers (1959) 172 Cal. App.2d 349, 366-367; Forte v. Nolfi, supra, 25 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

PAUL COLICHMAN VS KIMBERLY SARAH DONER

I. 1st cause of action for Slander of Title—OVERRULED A claim for slander of title exists where defendant made a statement that casts doubt about the plaintiff’s ownership of certain real or personal property. See CACI 1730. “Slander of title is a false and unprivileged disparagement, oral or written, of the title to real or personal property, resulting in actual pecuniary damage.” 5 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2020), Torts §747.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MELBE ZEPEDA VS GUSTAVO RODRIGUEZ

Wellman states that the effect of the amendment would be to add Novum CT as a plaintiff, correct dates, add additional facts, replace certain allegations, seek punitive damages, and add 3 causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty, interference with contractual relationships, and slander. (Wellman Decl., ¶¶4, 7; see Notice of Mot. at pp.ii-iv, ¶¶1-14.) Mr.

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BECK V. CATANZARITE, ET AL.

Merits of Catanzarite, Woodward, and O'Keefe's Motion Here, Plaintiff brings the following causes of action against Defendants: (1) malicious prosecution; (2) unfair business practices; (3) slander of title; and, (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Catanzarite, Woodward, and O'Keefe specially move to strike all four causes of action alleged in the Complaint. The first, second and fourth causes of action are alleged against all three Defendants.

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

KRAFVE VS. KARFVE

The third cause of action for Slander alleges: 25. On or about April 23 and 24, 2019, LANA made various statements accusing JON of molesting their three-year old son, B.K.

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

CALIFORNIA STATE GRANGE, ET AL. V. SAN LUIS OBISPO GUILD HALL

Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint (FAC) alleges causes of action for (1) declaratory judgment, (2) cancellation of deed and quiet title, (3) slander of title, (4) conversion, (5) claim and delivery, and (6) ejectment. Plaintiffs’ lawsuit centers around a longstanding dispute between the National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry (the National Grange)1 and the California State Grange, on the one hand, and the California Guild, on the other hand. (FAC, ¶ 1.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

YIFEI PEI VS EUROBOOST MOTOR SPORTS

On December 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendant and Does 1-25 for: Breach of Oral Contract Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Fraud Conversion Constructive Trust Unjust Enrichment Slander of Title Specific Performance Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, Unfair Competition Claim and Delivery On January 27, 2020, Defendant’s default was entered.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ZACHARY SMITH VS VIVKA GREY, ET AL.

Here, there is no allegation of libel per se or slander per se. Accordingly, Smith’s cases are inapplicable. Accordingly, Smith’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the first cause of action is DENIED. Second Cause of Action: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Smith contends that the second cause of action fails as it is superfluous and redundant of the first cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 76     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.