What is slander/disparagement of title?

Useful Resources for Slander or Disparagement of Title

Recent Rulings on Slander or Disparagement of Title

51-75 of 1890 results

LESLIE GOULD, ET AL VS. JOEL D. KETTLER, ET AL

Kettler’s First through Third Causes of Action assert claims for libel per se, slander per se, and defamation. While the initial showing on these claims requires proof that the Goulds failed to use reasonable care to determine the truth or falsity of their statements (CACI 1704), the parties appear to agree that the common interest privilege of Civil Code section 47(c) applies, so Kettler will actually be required to prove malice to succeed on his defamation claims, consistent with CACI 1723.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PRIMO DEJESUS VS GER JONES, ET AL.

the caption page of his complaint: X Counts of Contract Violation(s), X Counts Gross Negligence with Reckless Disregard and Deliberate Indifference, Real Estate Fraud/Theft in excess of a 30 million dollar estate, Betrayal & Refusal to give Loyalty to their partner, Conspiracy, Green card abuse, XX counts State non-profit rules/laws violation(s) that in turn directly turned our church into a Cult, Elder Monetary abuse, age discrimination, Church board election violation(s), Monetary abuse of church funds, Slander

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LYLE HOWRY VS REGINALD MYLABATHULA BENJAMIN, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s operative first amended complaint (FAC) alleges claims for: (1) defamation per se; (2) libel per se; (3) slander per se; (4) abuse of process; (5) malicious prosecution; (6) perjury; and (7) fraud and deceit. Plaintiff and Reginald had a previous business relationship whereby Plaintiff invested in Reginald’s company Toby & Pucci. (FAC, ¶ 45.) However, when Plaintiff requested access to the books and online banking as promised in the contract, Reginald refused to allow Plaintiff to review them.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

CARLOS OCHOA VS EMPLOYBRIDGE HOLDING COMPANY DBA SELECT FAMILY OF STAFFING COMPANIES, ET AL.

Such disputes may include but are not limited to claims due to, or under breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, slander, personal injury, wages, salary, wrongful termination, paid vacation, paid sick leave, overtime pay . . . (Guerra Decl. Exh. A; Alcantra Decl., Exh. at p. 3.) Based on the foregoing, Moving Defendants uphold the burden to show the existence of an agreement to arbitrate by a preponderance of the evidence. (Espejo v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

TRISTAR REALTY GROUP, LLC VS. KOURY ENGINEERING

Koury, Dave Menefee, and Jacques Bertrand Roy and against Plaintiffs on the causes of action for fraud, unjust enrichment, slander of title, and unlawful business practices. · For KGS and against Plaintiffs on all causes of action by Plaintiffs against KGS. · For Tristar and against KET on Tristar’s breach of contract claim in the amount of $12,512.84. · For Tristar and Ventura’s and against KET as to KET’s breach of contract claim.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DISCOVER BANK VS ABRAAM TSOLAKYAN

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. PRESENTATION: Defendant filed all three motions on October 08, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

VICENCIO V. SHIRAKI

Second cause of action for slander of title “The thrust of the tort of disparagement or slander of title is protection from injury to the salability of property.” (Truck Insurance Exchange v. Bennett (1977) 53 Cal.App.4th 75, 84.) “To state a claim for slander of title, a plaintiff must allege ‘(1) a publication, (2) which is without privilege or justification,’ (3) which is false, and (4) which ‘causes direct and immediate pecuniary loss.’ [Citation.]” (Schep v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

MICHAEL L. WHITFIELD, SR., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PASTOR OF NEW TRUE FAITH MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT C VS AUBREY MANUEL, ET AL.

Per se slander is slander which falls within the first four subdivisions of Civil Code § 46. (Regalia v. The Nethercutt Collection (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 361, 367.) When an oral statement amounts to slander per se, no proof of actual damages is required. (Ibid.) “A Slander that does not fit into those four subdivisions is slander per quod, and special damages are required for there to be any recovery for that slander. [Citation.]” (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JACOB DEWITT VS DAVID JOSEPH BURTON, ET AL

App. 3d 1082, 1087 (finding easement occupiers extinguished the easement because their use of the easement area “was wholly inconsistent with the right of the [easement holders] to use it at will for entry upon their property . . . .”). 4th cause of action for slander of title The elements for slander of title are (1) publication, (2) falsity, (3) absence of privilege, and (4) disparagement of another’s land which is relied upon by a third party and which results in a pecuniary loss. Appel v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

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

    Nov 01, 2020

LEE VS. KIM

There was an act of slander per se against plaintiff by some or all of defendant and each of them by virtue of utterances made by some or all of defendants herein implying that plaintiff committed a criminal act of embezzlement; 3. Defendants Jung Jin Kim and Heric Kim committed an act of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress [(“IIED”)] against plaintiff during the February 26 and 27 meetings; and/or 4.

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2020

GARCIA VS ALLIED WASTE SYSTEMS

Witkin describes the relationship of the two torts: The Restatement describes the relationship of false light invasion of privacy to defamation as follows: "In many cases to which the rule stated here applies, the publicity given to the plaintiff is defamatory, so that he would have an action for libel or slander. ...

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

ESTEBAN MONTENEGRO VS FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION

The copy of the FACC attached to the motion to set aside set forth three causes of action, for Violation of California Civil Code § 2624.17, Wrongful Foreclosure, and Slander of Title. The FACC efiled with the court and served on the parties added a fourth cause of action for quiet title and fifth cause of action for declaratory relief. On July 26, 2019, the court heard demurrers to the FACC filed by cross-defendant Everyday Rich and cross-defendants Bank of America, N.A. and Recontrust Co., N.A.

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

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

On October 26, 2020, Elad Investment, LLC filed a complaint in intervention for disparagement of title and cancellation of instrument. LEGAL AUTHORITY “At any time after notice of pendency of action has been recorded, any party, or any nonparty with an interest in the real property affected thereby, may apply to the court in which the action is pending to expunge the notice.” CCP §405.30. In a motion to expunge a notice of lis pendens, the claimant who filed the lis pendens has the burden of proof.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

SILHAN VS SAN JOAQUIN

Triable issues of material fact exist as to Plaintiff’s causes of action for slander (UMF 26-27), intentional interference with prospective economic relations (UMF 43-44, 48 and 51) and claim for punitive damages. (UMF 27, 59-63.) Overrule Defendants’ Objection No. 2 to Plaintiff’s Declaration; Decline to rule on the remainder of Defendants’ objections as immaterial.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

SUPERIOR COURT VS. MIRANDA WINES

Civil Rules of Court, Rule 3.714(b)(1)(C) and (b)(2)(C). 9"The periods prescribed for the commencement of actions other than for the recovery of real property, are as follows: . . . . .One year; (c) Libel, slander, . . . . .” the amended complaint does not sufficiently relate-back to the original complaint, so the cause of action for the added claim would accrue from October 17, 2018, when the report was published. II. Analysis.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

JLS DEVELOPMENT GROUP VS SWAUGER HEARING RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COMPLAINT OF JLS DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC BY CATHLEEN MARMON, MICHAEL MARMON

The tort of trade libel is a business tort, similar to libel or defamation, however it is a form of injurious falsehood more similar to slander of title. (Polvaram Records. Inc. v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal. App.3d 543, 548.) " What distinguishes a claim of disparagement is that an injurious falsehood has been directed specifically at the plaintiff's business or product, derogating that business or product and thereby causing that plaintiff special damages." (Hartford Casualty Ins.

  • Hearing

    Oct 27, 2020

AGUILERA SERVICE VS. STABEN BROTHERS INC

There is no dispute that, if untrue, the statement which defendants published to the effect that Aguilera's employees were caught trying to steal trash containers belonging to defendants constitutes slander per se. (Civ. Code, § 46(1).) Defendants' motion is premised on the argument that there is no material dispute the statement was true. The truth or falsity of a defamatory statement – here, an accusation of theft – is a factual question. (Fisher v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

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

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BURNEY V. ERB

The 1st amended complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to establish all HOA members have standing to recover for defendant Ott’s slander of the title to plaintiff Bowmans property.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

STEVEN POWERS VS MARCOS VIVIAN, ET AL.

The FAC alleges causes of action as follows: (1) fraud, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, concealment and constructive fraud against Vivian and Pacific View, (2) elder abuse against Vivian, Pacific View and Vicino, (3) breach of fiduciary duty against Vivian, Pacific View and Vicino, (4) fraudulent transfer against all defendants, (5) breach of contract against Vivian, (6) slander of title against all defendants, (7) unfair business practices against all defendants, and (8) unjust enrichment

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ESTRELLA A. AGUINALDO, ET AL. VS ERNESTO A. ABAD, ET AL.

Slander of Title; 4. Cancellation of Written Instrument. Plaintiffs move for an order granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against defendants Ernesto A. Abad and Rosita C. Aba. Alternatively, Plaintiffs move for summary adjudication of issues. Issues 1 to 4 seek adjudication of the four specific causes of action. Plaintiffs’ motion is based on the ground that Defendants’ have no defense to Plaintiffs’ causes of action because Defendants violated the one form of action rule of CCP § 726.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

YULIYA GAYEVSKA VS ZINC FINANCIAL, INC.

Slander of Title For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for wrongful foreclosure, and therefore has necessarily failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action for slander of title. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s twelfth cause of action is sustained, with leave to amend. It is so ordered. Dated: , 2020 Hon. Jon R.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

RAMADAN VS O'BRIEN

As to the third cause of action for inducing breach of contract The third cause of action alleges that the recording of the lis pendens and the disparagement of title alleged in the second cause of action resulted in the July contract for sale of the subject property being cancelled because the buyer could not get title insurance with the lis pendens recorded on the property.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

CLAUDIO ZAMPOLLI VS TRISTRAM THOMAS BUCKLEY

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant alleging causes of action for: (1) assault and battery; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3) slander per se; and (4) elder abuse in violation of California Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 15600 et seq. Moving Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication. Moving Defendant’s motion is made on the grounds that there are no triable issues of material fact as to any of Plaintiff’s claims.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  « 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.