What is slander/disparagement of title?

Useful Resources for Slander or Disparagement of Title

Recent Rulings on Slander or Disparagement of Title

76-100 of 1892 results

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

LAMPLEY V. A COMMUNITY OF FRIENDS, INC.

Fourth Cause of Action (Libel and Slander): “Defamation ‘involves (a) a publication that is (b) false, (c) defamatory, and (d) unprivileged, and that (e) has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damage.’ [Citation.]

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

AURIC ENERGY VS. RANGEL

Based on the foregoing, the Court it appears the demurrer to the Fourth Cause of Action for Trespass to Land, the Fifth Cause of Action for Slander of Title, the Sixth Cause of Action to Quiet Title, and the Thirteenth Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief, which involve claims for Auric Energy, Inc. should be sustained for lack of standing.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

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

    Oct 20, 2020

MEHRAN GHODOOSHIM VS ANDREWS FAMILY LAW AND MEDIATION MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL.

“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. [Citations.]” (Alpha & Omega Development, LP v. Whillock Contracting, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 656, 664.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JAMILA SOZAHDAH VS DRIP DOCTORS, INC., ET AL.

Ho contends that Sozadah urges a per se exemption to libel or slander of a doctor regardless of the content or the context of the statement, and Yang did not stand for the proposition that all statements as to a doctor’s skill or competence is per se free speech. Ho contends that Sozadah’s communication is not protected by section 425.16(e) because it was made privately to Ho’s supervisor and was not made as part of a public discussion as to Ho’s qualification as a medical doctor.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

FAIRMONT RIDING VS. PESTANA

Discussion In pertinent part, Civil Code § 46 states, “Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered ... which: ... 1. Charges any person with crime ... 2. Imputes in [her] the present existence of [a] ... loathsome disease; [or] 3. Tends directly to injure [her] in respect to [her] ... business ....”

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

FAIRMONT RIDING VS. PESTANA

Further, Fairmont and Moeller sue for slander concerning defamatory remarks made about them made by defendant Pestana at a meeting of the horse owners at a pizza parlor, Ascona’s, in Danville on Wednesday, March 1, 2017. Plaintiffs allege the Sheehys conspired with and aided Pestana in making these defamatory publications. (SAC, ¶ 22, 59.) The Sheehys move for summary judgment. They do not move for summary adjudication in the alternative.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

BISAGNO V. RESOLVE DEFAULT SERVICES

.; slander of title; and wrongful foreclosure. Defendant MERS moved for judgment on the pleadings on the 2nd amended complaint. The court issued a 39 page tentative ruling detailing the court’s analysis of the motion and tentatively granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend. At the hearing on August 14, 2020 plaintiff read a statement on the record, defendant MERS’ counsel provided oral argument, and plaintiff provided further oral argument.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

PADRON V. BELTRAN

The Restatement states it thusly: 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. … In such a case the action for invasion of privacy will afford an alternative or additional remedy, and the plaintiff can proceed upon either theory, or both, although he can have but one recovery for a single instance of publicity.”

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

CAVERT V SWEENEY

On May 1, 2020 plaintiff filed a complaint for damages against defendant asserting causes of action for slander and slander per se The proof of service filed on August 17, 2020 declares that on July 29, 2020 defendant was personally served the summons and complaint. There was no answer or response to the complaint in the court’s file at the time this ruling was prepared.

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

JORGE ROBLES, ET AL. VS MARIBEL HINOJOSA

First, Second, & Third Causes of Action for Defamation: Libel Per Se (Pursuant to Civil Code § 45a); Defamation: Slander (Pursuant to Civil Code § 46); and Violation of Business & Professions Code section 1700, et seq. “Defamation constitutes an injury to reputation; the injury may occur by means of libel or slander. [Citation.]

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

HINSON VS. BRANDYBERRY

The Court further notes that in their reply, defendants request that plaintiff post a bond sufficient to protect the interests of Brandyberry to allow him a recovery if plaintiff continues to slander the title to the Pierson Property and does not prevail at trial. However, this request is not proper, nor is there any authority provided in support of the request. To the extent that defendants believe this request remains necessary, defendants may bring a proper separate motion. Plaintiff to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

MIGUEL SAHAGUN VS HUNTINGTON PARK-MAYWOOD POST NO. 2830, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.

Musgrove Post, No. 7734, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Special Default Services (SDS), alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (3) slander of title. On December 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice of lis pendens. Now, Huntington Park-Maywood Post No. 2830, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW Post) and Lt. Ray L.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

LOEFFLER V. ASSOCIATION LIEN SERVICES, INC.

Since plaintiff’s quiet title and slander of title claims were based solely on her belief that she was not a “member” of the HOA, and since only members could make such a challenge and still enjoy the protections afforded by §5145, this Court concludes that §5145 does not apply to plaintiff’s challenge and does not limit the HOA’s right to seek recovery for attorney fees incurred in a defense of their governing documents.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

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. On August 26, 2020, Defendant served its Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records on the Law Offices of Simon & Resnik.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANAT KRICHMAR VS LUDMILLA HAIKIN

Fourth Cause of Action (Slander of Title). The statute of limitations for a slander of title action is three years. (Code Civ. Proc., § 338(g).) It has been held that the delayed discovery rule applies to delay accrual of the statute of limitations for slander of title. (Arthur v. Davis (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 684, 690-692.) For the reasons discussed above re: the first cause of action, the fourth cause of action, as pled, is not barred by the applicable statute of limitations. E.

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ASATUR GALADJIAN, ET AL. VS INTER VALLEY ESCROW, INC., ET AL.

But, the Court did not rule that the Slander of Title cause of action could never be added. Here, plaintiffs now properly seek leave to add the Slander of Title cause of action before adding it to their pleading. Defendants also argue that plaintiffs fail to adequately state their proposed causes of action and are not entitled to certain damages claimed in the proposed pleading.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GENIS VS COSTABILE

These allegations are made against other defendants and not against McQueen Defendants as to the Eighth Cause of Action for Slander of Title. (3) The Court DENIES the motion to strike the attorney's fees prayer of the FAC at page 25, paragraph 3. This prayer relates to the First Cause of Action for fraud against the Costabiles. McQueen Defendants are not named defendants as to that cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

GENIS VS COSTABILE

These allegations are made against other defendants and not against McQueen Defendants as to the Eighth Cause of Action for Slander of Title. (3) The Court DENIES the motion to strike the attorney's fees prayer of the FAC at page 25, paragraph 3. This prayer relates to the First Cause of Action for fraud against the Costabiles. McQueen Defendants are not named defendants as to that cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KRISTI COURTOIS, , AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND AS BENEFICIARY AND HEIR OF THE ESTATE OF AUSTEENE G. COOPER VS NEWREZ, LLC., ET AL.

Defendants identify the following claims as being brought by Plaintiff on Cooper’s behalf: Wrongful Foreclosure, Elder Abuse, Fraud, Slander of Title, Homeowners Bill of Rights (HBOR) violations, Breach of Contract, and Invasion of Privacy. (Demurrer at pp. 3–4.) Defendants’ argument is generally unsupported by authority. They contend that Plaintiff has not shown that she has any obligation on the loan or title to the property, yet she alleges title to the property in the Complaint. (Complaint ¶ 14.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

SAIMIR A PRAPANIKU VS SASHA SHEV

The cross-complaint contains the following causes of action: (1) Quiet Title; (2) Cancellation of Instrument; (3) Declaratory Relief; (4) Injunctive Relief; (5) Slander of Title; (6) Fraud and Deceit; (7) Negligent Misrepresentation; (8) Breach of Contract; (9) Negligence; (10) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (11) Equitable Indemnity and (12) Contribution. On 3/4/20, Rios received the escrow file. (Dudkowski Decl.).

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KURT OLDMAN, ET AL. VS TYLER BATES, ET AL.

Defamation has two forms—libel and slander. Civ. Code § 44. “Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing … which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, … or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation.” Civ. Code § 45. Defendant Bates alleges Plaintiff Hartmann committed defamation when he wrote, in an e-mail to Bates and his agent: Half a day’s work for five minutes of music? That would take you two weeks at least.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MECHELLET V ARMELIN VS DULANY HILL, ET AL.

Second Cause of Action (Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction); Third Cause of Action (Slander of Title); Fourth Cause of Action (Quiet Title). A. Re: Trust Cannot Be Named As A Party For the reasons discussed above at 1.A., the demurrer to the second, third and fourth causes of action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend as to Defendant The Vermont Trust. B. Statute of Limitations and Lack of Specificity.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  « 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.