Slander or Disparagement of Title in California

What is Slander or Disparagement of Title?

Slander of title requires “disparagement of another's land which is relied upon by a third party and which results in a pecuniary loss.” (Smith v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 625, 630.) “California has adopted the definition of slander of title set forth in § 624 of the Restatement of Torts reading as follows: ‘One who, without a privilege to do so, publishes matter which is untrue and disparaging to another's property in land, chattels or intangible things under such circumstances as would lead a reasonable man to foresee that the conduct of a third person as purchaser or lessee thereof might be determined thereby is liable for pecuniary loss resulting to the other from the impairment of vendibility thus caused.’” (Howard v. Schaniel (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 256, 262-263; Gudger v. Manton (1943) 21 Cal.2d 537, 545.)

“The gravamen of an action for ‘disparagement of title,’ also known as ‘slander of title,’ differs from that of an action for personal defamation. Disparagement of title occurs when a person, without a privilege to do so, publishes a false statement that disparages title to property and causes pecuniary loss. ‘The elements of the tort are (1) publication, (2) absence of justification, (3) falsity and (4) direct pecuniary loss.’ What makes conduct actionable is not whether a defendant succeeds in casting a legal cloud on plaintiff’s title, but whether the defendant could reasonably foresee that the false publication might determine the conduct of a third person buyer or lessee. 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 (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 75, 84-85.)

Disparagement may be either direct (Baker v Kale (1947) 83 Cal.App.2d 89) or indirect (Cavin Mem. Corp. v Requa (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 345). “If the publication is reasonably understood to cast doubt upon the existence or extent of another’s interest in land, it is disparaging to the latter’s title. The main thrust of the cause of action is protection from injury to the salability of property, which is ordinarily indicated by the loss of a particular sale, impaired marketability or depreciation in value.” (Sumner Hill Homeowners’ Assn., Inc. v. Rio Mesa Holdings, LLC (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 999, 1030.)

Publication requires the communication of the disparaging material to a third person, and may occur orally, in writing, or by conduct. (Southcott v Pioneer Title Co. (1962) 203 Cal.App.2d 673.) “The manner in which the injurious falsehood is communicated is immaterial. It is generally communicated by words written or spoken that assert the statement. Disparaging matter is often published by filing a mortgage or other lien for record. As in the case of libel or slander, there may be a sufficient publication by any form of conduct that is intended to assert or is reasonably understood as an assertion of a disparaging statement. Thus a landowner who encloses a part of his neighbor's adjoining premises in such a way as to indicate that it is a part of his own has as effectively disparaged his neighbor’s property in the land so enclosed as though he had expressly stated that he himself had title to it.” (Rest.2d Torts, § 630, com. b.)

“[D]isparagement and ensuing damage may be established by other than showing a loss of a particular potential sale.” (Glass v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 412, 424.) § 633 of the Restatement of Torts reads: “The pecuniary loss for which a publisher of injurious falsehood is subjected to liability is restricted to

  1. the pecuniary loss that results directly and immediately from the effect of the conduct of third persons, including impairment of vendibility or value caused by disparagement, and
  2. the expense of measures reasonably necessary to counteract the publication, including litigation to remove the doubt cast upon vendibility or value by disparagement.”

(Rest. 2d, Torts, § 633.)

“Although a slander of title claim does not seek transfer of an interest in the property, such a 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.”’” (Chao Fu, Inc. v. Chen (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 48, 58.)

“A cause of action for slander of title accrues, and the statute begins to run, when plaintiff could reasonably be expected to discover the existence of the claim.” (Stalberg v. Western Title Insurance Co. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1223, 1230.) Code of Civil Procedure, § 340, subdivision (c) states the limitations period for traditional libel and slander claims is one year. However, the courts have explicitly distinguished claims for commercial disparagement or “trade libel” from traditional libel and slander claims brought by individuals and held these business torts are not subject to the one-year statute of limitations in § 340. (Guess, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 473, 478-79.)

Rulings for Slander or Disparagement of Title in California

The operative first amended complaint alleges claims against Nygard for (1) disparagement of title and (2) quiet title. This hearing is on Nygards demurrer . Nygard demurs to the first cause of action for disparagement of title on the ground that Topanga itself executed the DOT, and there is no allegation the DOT was forged or Topanga was deceived in the making and delivery of the DOT.

  • Name

    BLUSKY RESTORATION CONTRACTORS, LLC, ET AL. VS 13700 SATICOY LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20VECV01211

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Slander or disparagement of title occurs when a person, without a privilege to do so, publishes a false statement that disparages title to property and causes the owner thereof “ ‘some special pecuniary loss or damage.’ ” The elements of the tort are (1) a publication, (2) without privilege or justification, (3) falsity, and (4) direct pecuniary loss.” See Sumner Hill Homeowners’ Assn., Inc. v. Rio Mesa Holdings, LLC, 205 Cal.App.4th 999, 1030 (2012).

  • Name

    GAINQUICK LLC VS. JTH HOLDINGS, LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00874017-CU-OR-CJC

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2018

It is essential to an action for slander of title that the party claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged slanderous disparagement of title must plead and prove not only that the statements complained of were false, but that they were maliciously made with the intent to thereby disparage the title involved. (Howard v. Schaniel (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 256, at 263-264 and Fearon v. Fodera (1915) 169 Cal. 370, 379-380.)

  • Name

    JAMES S BROWN VS. GONSALO DELATOBA

  • Case No.

    56-2008-00315805-CU-FR-SIM

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2009

On 1/20/21, Plaintiff filed this action for disparagement of title related to the Ballinger Property against Nania and the attorneys that represented Nania in relation to the recording of and failure to withdraw the lis pendens against the Ballinger Property. On 2/25/21, Defendants Barbara Nania, Brett A. Berman and The Berman Law Group, APC (collectively, Defendants) filed the instant motion seeking an order, pursuant to CCP 425.16, striking Plaintiff’s Complaint for Disparagement of Title against them.

  • Name

    ALMA D RIVERA VS BARBARA NANIA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21CHCV00042

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2021

Finally, Cross-Complainant alleges that Cross-Defendant recorded the mechanic’s lien with “reckless disregard” for its truth, falsity, or validity and as a result, filing the meritless lien caused Plaintiff to suffer wrongful disparagement of title and pecuniary loss. (Id. at ¶56.) Cross-Complainant points to Seeley v.

  • Name

    PEREZ RECONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS TRACEY RENE WASHINGTON

  • Case No.

    20STLC00124

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Judge

    Darren L Vahle

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(Complaint ¶ 78.) (6) Plaintiff was harmed in that it suffered disparagement of title (Complaint ¶ 80) and incurred legal expenses (Complaint ¶ 84). (7) Plaintiff’s harm was proximately caused by CCA’s slander. (Complaint ¶¶ 80 and 84). The parties dispute the question whether malice is a necessary element of a slander of title claim. But as Gudger v. Manton (1943) 21 Cal.2d 537 explained, a publication without privilege or justification constitutes express or implied malice (Id. at p. 264).

  • Name

    GAINQUICK LLC VS JTH HOLDINGS LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00874017

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

Further, the issue of disparagement of title was not litigated in the nuisance action, nor was the issue of agency between Dillon and Gulf Horizons with respect to the disparagement of title cause of action. As the verdict form in the nuisance action plainly shows, the agency issue in that case involved whether Dillon was acting as Gulf Horizons’ agent when she interfered with Mr. Welsh’s quiet use and enjoyment of his property.

  • Name

    GREGG WELSH VS HADDON B DILLON

  • Case No.

    1337207

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2010

Substantive Third Cause of Action—Slander of Title Defendant Jinkie argues that the only cause of action brought against her, the third cause of action for slander of title, fails to state a cause of action against her. The elements of a Slander of Title Cause of action are: 1) Plaintiff’s title; must allege ownership of real or personal property; 2) Defendant’s disparagement of title; e.g. false written or oral statement or false claim of interest; 3) Specific pecuniary damage as a result. Davis v.

  • Case No.

    EC06531

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2016

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Substantive Third Cause of Action—Slander of Title Defendant Jinkie argues that the only cause of action brought against her, the third cause of action for slander of title, fails to state a cause of action against her. The elements of a Slander of Title Cause of action are: 1) Plaintiff’s title; must allege ownership of real or personal property; 2) Defendant’s disparagement of title; e.g. false written or oral statement or false claim of interest; 3) Specific pecuniary damage as a result. Davis v.

  • Name

    PLATINUM REALTY DEVELOPMENT INC. VS. JEFFREY CHOI ET AL

  • Case No.

    EC065316

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2016

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

“The gravamen of an action for ‘disparagement of title,’ also known as ‘slander of title,’ differs from that of an action for personal defamation. [Citation.] Disparagement of title occurs when a person, without a privilege to do so, publishes a false statement that disparages title to property and causes pecuniary loss. [Citation.] ‘The elements of the tort are (1) publication, (2) absence of justification, (3) falsity and (4) direct pecuniary loss.’ [Citation.]

  • Name

    MARY LOU MANKOWSKI V. LA CUMBRE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

  • Case No.

    1343277

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2011

Third Cause of Action: Disparagement of Title In the third cause of action, Cross-Complainants allege that Calvano published false statements on a website disparaging their lawful ownership of the Hope Street Properties. (FACC at ¶¶ 32-36.) “Slander or disparagement of title occurs when a person, without a privilege to do so, publishes a false statement that disparages title to property and causes the owner thereof some special pecuniary loss or damage. [Citation.]

  • Name

    C-M HOPE STREET, ET AL. V. EDMUND Y. SUN AND JANE V. SUN AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE

  • Case No.

    2015-1-CV-288062

  • Hearing

    Mar 29, 2018

Although older California cases dealing with slander of title refer to "malicious" disparagement and state that "malice" is an essential element of the cause of action, it was later held that actual malice or ill will is unnecessary. Id. All that is required is the "fictional malice" or "malice implied in law" from the unprivileged character of the act. Id. Disparagement of Title.

  • Name

    WILLIAM C EVES TRUSTEE OF THE WILLIAM AND MEGAN EVES FAMILY TRUST DATED 12/14/2007 VS CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    37-2015-00039573-CU-BC-CTL

  • Hearing

    May 17, 2017

Plaintiff has alleged a cause of action for slander of title and attorney's fees are an element of damage in such actions. (Seeley v. Seymour (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 844, 865 ["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...".) Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees is in accordance with applicable law. The minute order is effective immediately.

  • Name

    KELSEY JOHNSON VS. JOHN M MEYER

  • Case No.

    34-2011-00101133-CU-OR-GDS

  • Hearing

    Dec 15, 2011

Slander or disparagement of title occurs when a person, without a privilege to do so, publishes a false statement that disparages title to property and causes the owner thereof “ ‘some special pecuniary loss or damage.’ ” The elements of the tort are (1) a publication, (2) without privilege or justification, (3) falsity, and (4) direct pecuniary loss.” See Sumner Hill Homeowners’ Assn., Inc. v. Rio Mesa Holdings, LLC, 205 Cal.App.4th 999, 1030 (2012).

  • Name

    GAINQUICK LLC VS. JTH HOLDINGS, LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00874017-CU-OR-CJC

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2018

Slander of Title (3rd Cause of Action) The elements of a cause of action for slander of title are (1) a publication, (2) which is without privilege or justi¿cation, (3) which is false, and (4) which causes direct and immediate pecuniary loss. (Alpha & Omega Development, LP v. Whillock Contracting, Inc. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 656, 664.) Slander of title is a tort claim brought for disparagement of title to either real or personal property, which affects its vendibility or salability. (M.F. Farming, Co. v.

  • Name

    TONY TO CHONG LOO, ET AL. VS ZIXI LI, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19PSCV00880

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2020

The operative second amended complaint alleges two claims: (1) disparagement of title and (2) quiet title. The Court previously sustained a demurrer to the first amended complaint which contained the same two claims as the SAC , concluding that Topanga cannot show slander of title where Topanga intentionally and with authority executed and delivered the DOT.

  • Name

    ANTHONY WALKER, ET AL. VS ESTEBAN ACUNA

  • Case No.

    23VECV01211

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Discussion 1) The third cause of action for slander of title is well stated. Slander or disparagement of title requires proof of (1) a publication, which is (2) without privilege or justification and thus with express or implied malice, (3) false, either knowingly made or made without regard to its truthfulness and (4) causes pecuniary loss. ( Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Pyle (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 513, 527, fn. 7.)

  • Name

    MCCOY PLAZA, L.P., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL. VS FIRTH 1, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22CMCV00498

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

As a general rule, the recording of an unfounded claim to the property of another is actionable has a disparagement of title, while a person who deceives another with intent to induce him to alter his position to his risk of injury is liable for fraud. (See e.g. Wright v. Rogers (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 349, 365-366.)

  • Name

    PARKASH PABLA ET AL. VS GURSHARN PABLA ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20CV-03476

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2021

  • County

    Merced County, CA

(C) Punitive Damages for Slander of Title “The gravamen of an action for ‘disparagement of title,’ also known as ‘slander of title,’ differs from that of an action for personal defamation. [Citation.] Disparagement of title occurs when a person, without a privilege to do so, publishes a false statement that disparages title to property and causes pecuniary loss. [Citation.] ‘The elements of the tort are (1) publication, (2) absence of justification, (3) falsity and (4) direct pecuniary loss.’ [Citation.]

  • Name

    JAMES BELL ET AL VS HIDDEN VALLEY LANE ASSOCIATION ET AL

  • Case No.

    1414605

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2013

Slander or disparagement of title occurs when a person, without a privilege to do so, publishes a false statement that disparages title to property and causes the owner thereof ‘ “some special pecuniary loss or damage.” ’ [Citation.] The elements of the tort are (1) a publication, (2) without privilege or justification, (3) falsity, and (4) direct pecuniary loss. [Citations.]

  • Name

    VICTOR D. CONTRERAS V. STEVEN E. PENNER

  • Case No.

    18CV02844

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2018

The husband prevailed in his action for quiet title and disparagement of title. Finch v. Aerospace Corp. v. City of San Diego (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 1248 concerned title to airport hangars. Appel v. Burman (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 1209 involved a boundary dispute between neighbors. One neighbor had plans to move an existing boundary fence to correspond to the actual boundary between the properties, and to have a utility pole moved at the same time.

  • Name

    TAMAZI GOGADZE VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22BBCV00172

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Slander of Title: A slander or disparagement of title has been defined as “the publication of a false statement disparaging another’s property rights in land, chattels or intangible things that the publisher should recognize as likely to result in pecuniary harm to the other through the conduct of third persons in respect to the other’s interest in the property.” (Restatement of Torts § 624; Seeley v. Seymour (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 844, 858-859.)

  • Name

    CALVARY CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST VS THREE DESERT STREAMS INC

  • Case No.

    RIC1826920

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2021

Slander of Title: A slander or disparagement of title has been defined as “the publication of a false statement disparaging another’s property rights in land, chattels or intangible things that the publisher should recognize as likely to result in pecuniary harm to the other through the conduct of third persons in respect to the other’s interest in the property.” (Restatement of Torts § 624; Seeley v. Seymour (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 844, 858-859.)

  • Name

    CALVARY CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST VS THREE DESERT STREAMS INC

  • Case No.

    RIC1826920

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2021

Slander of Title: A slander or disparagement of title has been defined as “the publication of a false statement disparaging another’s property rights in land, chattels or intangible things that the publisher should recognize as likely to result in pecuniary harm to the other through the conduct of third persons in respect to the other’s interest in the property.” (Restatement of Torts § 624; Seeley v. Seymour (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 844, 858-859.)

  • Name

    CALVARY CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST VS THREE DESERT STREAMS INC

  • Case No.

    RIC1826920

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2021

On the scant showing made, the Court cannot find the designation of such an expert is warranted simply based on the Third Amended Complaint’s cause of action for disparagement of title. Indeed, it is hard to see how a new expert concerning title to property is suddenly needed for this cause of action when the cause of action for Quiet Title was already part of the case.

  • Name

    CESAR ROMERO ET AL. VS LI-CHUAN SHIH ET AL.

  • Case No.

    EC064933

  • Hearing

    May 22, 2019

Plaintiff also contends it may recover attorneys’ fees as damages under its first cause of action for slander of title, citing Sumner Hill Homeowners' Assn., Inc. v. Rio Mesa Holdings, LLC (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 999, 1032, which holds: “While it is true that an essential element of a cause of action for slander of title is that the plaintiff suffered pecuniary damage as a result of the disparagement of title (Manhattan Loft, LLC v.

  • Name

    HARBOR CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP VS. THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD

  • Case No.

    30-2014-00709165

  • Hearing

    Apr 01, 2021

Slander of Title Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to state this cause of action against Ladera and Lordon. “Slander or disparagement of title occurs when a person, without a privilege to do so, publishes a false statement that disparages title to property and causes the owner thereof some special pecuniary loss or damage. The elements of the tort are (1) a publication, (2) without privilege or justification, (3) falsity, and (4) direct pecuniary loss.

  • Name

    DONNIE MULDROW VS LADERA CREST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC720986

  • Hearing

    May 20, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

Slander of title is sufficiently pled “Slander or disparagement of title occurs when a person, without a privilege to do so, publishes a false statement that disparages title to property and causes the owner thereof “ ‘some special pecuniary loss or damage. The elements of the tort are (1) a publication, (2) without privilege or justification, (3) falsity, and (4) direct pecuniary loss.

  • Name

    OTTO L. HASELHOFF, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE OTTO AND LARA HASELHOFF FAMILY TRUST DATED JULY 27, 2006, AND AS ASSIGNEE OF GREG BRILES INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARTNER AND/OR TRUSTEE VS CITY OF SANTA MONICA, A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY

  • Case No.

    19SMCV00850

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

Slander of Title/Disparagement of Title (7th Cause of Action) In their remaining claim, Cross-Complainants assert that because Ramos’ claims regarding the Property are without merit, the lis pendens recorded by him operates as a slander of their title and they are entitled to actual and punitive damages as a result. (SACC, ¶¶ 69- 72.)

  • Name

    JOSUE RAMOS VS FRANCISCO MEDINA ET AL

  • Case No.

    19CV359044

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

The complaint includes causes of action for violation of the Homeowners Bill of Rights, unfair business practices, disparagement of title, declaratory relief, breach of contract, and quiet title. Plaintiffs have owned the property since 1991 and the current promissory note is secured by a July 27, 2005 Deed of Trust.

  • Name

    MICHAEL CRUZ, ET AL. V. NEW PENN FINANCIAL LLC

  • Case No.

    17CV-0503

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2017

Rivera NOTICE: ok RELIEF REQUESTED : An order, pursuant to CCP 425.16, striking Plaintiff’s Complaint for Disparagement of Title against Defendants Barbara Nania, Brett A. Berman and The Berman Law Group, APC. RULING : The hearing will be continued. Opposition papers must be filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing date. CCP 1005(b).

  • Name

    ALMA D RIVERA VS BARBARA NANIA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21CHCV00042

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

As to Lepe, Defendants have alleged causes of action for quiet title, cancellation of instruments, disparagement of title, claim against notary bond and declaratory relief. Lepe has filed this Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings claiming that Defendants do not have standing to bring the claims alleged as they have no title to the property based on judicially noticeable recorded documents.

  • Name

    LEPE VS GARCIA

  • Case No.

    RIC1714222

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2019

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION – SLANDER OF TITLE “Slander or disparagement of title occurs when a person, without a privilege to do so, publishes a false statement that disparages title to property and causes the owner thereof ‘“some special pecuniary loss or damage.”’ [Citation.] The elements of the tort are (1) a publication, (2) without privilege or justification, (3) falsity, and (4) direct pecuniary loss.” (Sumner Hill Homeowners' Assn., Inc. v. Rio Mesa Holdings, LLC (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 999, 1030.)

  • Name

    SERGIO DEL TORO VS BANK OF AMEIRCA A NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ET

  • Case No.

    BC637592

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2017

The Cross-Complaint sets forth four causes of action: (1) declaratory relief (against Ginsburg); (2) slander/disparagement of title (against Ginsburg); (3) declaratory relief (against CIT Bank); and (4) abuse of process (against CIT Bank). * * * CIT Bank now demurs to the Cross-Complaint and argues: (1) the litigation privilege bars both causes of action against CIT Bank; (2) the Cross-Complaint does not set forth sufficient facts to support either cause of action against CIT Bank; and (3) the Cross-Complaint

  • Name

    LAW OFFICE OF EVAN L GINSBURG VS SAVIN

  • Case No.

    RIC1905234

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

Disparagement of title occurs when a person, without a privilege to do so, publishes a false statement that disparages title to property and causes pecuniary loss. The elements of the tort are (1) publication, (2) absence of justification, (3) falsity, and (4) direct pecuniary loss.” (Truck Insurance Exchange v. Bennett (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 75, 84.) The esteemed commentators, Miller and Starr, state the cause of action a bit differently.

  • Name

    BARBARA HOLDINGS, INC. V. 2006 CATALINA FUND, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18CV332880

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2019

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

FIVE RIVER HOSPITALITY LLC HEARING ON DEMURRER TO: DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF RELATED CASE FILED BY: *TENTATIVE RULING:* Plaintiff states no facts to support a cause of actions for slander per se, slander per se, false light, or infliction of emotional distress. As to slander per se Plaintiff alleges no facts to support this cause of action. As to slander Plaintiff alleges no damages to support a cause of action.

  • Name

    MALAYA KEYS VS. FIVE RIVER HOSPITALITY LLC

  • Case No.

    C23-02409

  • Hearing

    Feb 02, 2024

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

A slander that falls within the first four subdivisions of section 46 is slander per se and requires no proof of actual damage. 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. Here, the complaint alleges only one statement made by a previous bartender of the plaintiff business, who allegedly stated: “There goes the Stalker”. The statement does not fall within one of the four categories of slander.

  • Name

    LEWIS VS. MAIN STREET SPORTS BAR

  • Case No.

    CV15-00101

  • Hearing

    Oct 14, 2015

Slander of Title The elements of a Slander of Title Cause of action are: 1) Plaintiff’s title; must allege ownership of real or personal property; 2) Defendant’s disparagement of title; e.g. false written or oral statement or false claim of interest; 3) Specific pecuniary damage as a result. Davis v. Wood (1943) 61 Cal.App.2d 788, Witkin § 749; Cf. Albertson v. Raboff (1956) 46 Cal.2d 375.

  • Name

    RACHEL MIZRAHI, ET.AL. VS. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL, ET.AL.

  • Case No.

    EC065914

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

Here, the Church alleges defendants, including Balboa, breached a duty of care “not to slander the title to the real properties of the Plaintiff.” (FAC, ¶ 70.) Balboa argues that this claim fails for the same reasons the slander of title claim fails. As discussed above, however, the Church properly states a claim for slander of title.

  • Name

    CALVARY CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST VS THREE DESERT STREAMS INC

  • Case No.

    RIC1826920

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2020

The HOA claims, nevertheless, that it may still pursue its slander of title cause of action and that the demurrer to the 3rd cause of action (“c/a”) for slander of title as to Lot 42 should be overruled. For the following reasons, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. The HOA cannot state a slander of title claim against B of A. Slander of title may be either by words or an act that clouds title to the property. (See, e.g., Alpha & Omega Development, LP v.

  • Name

    PALMS & SANDS OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. V BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    PSC 1702427

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2018

The foregoing allegations are sufficient to state the 3 rd cause of action for Slander of Title. Defendants concede that because Plaintiff has not pled the exact wording of the Multiple Listing Service listing which he claims has slandered the title to his property, “the court cannot determine for purposes of demurrer if a slander of title has been committed.” ( See p.2:24-25).

  • Name

    MARIOS POLYCHRONAS, AS TRUSTEE OF THE MARIOS POLYCHRONAS INTER-VIVOS TRUST OF 2004 VS MONICA L. COSTELLO, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21CHCV00301

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

As to the 2nd cause of action for slander per se, Defendant contends this cause of action fails because “slander” is defined as an “oral publication” in Civil Code section 46 and the FAC alleges the statements were made on the Internet (see ¶18); that the alleged statements were too generic and generalized; and that Plaintiff must demonstrate injury in order to plead a claim for slander per se. None of these contentions have merit.

  • Name

    BURKE VS. ORTIZ

  • Case No.

    30-2018-00966860

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2018

Issue 5: Whether the sixth cause of action for slander of title against the Association fails because the recording of the relevant documents was proper. The sixth cause of action is for slander of title. Slander or disparagement of title occurs when a person, without a privilege to do so, publishes a false statement that disparages title to property and causes the owner thereof “some special pecuniary loss or damage.” Sumner Hills Homeowners’ Association, Inc. v.

  • Name

    LOEFFLER VS. ASSOCIATION LIEN SERVICES, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00873201-CU-OR-CJC

  • Hearing

    Oct 11, 2018

Defendant Farrell now demurs to plaintiffs’ second amended complaint on the ground that the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for slander. Farrell’s previous demurrer to the slander cause of action in plaintiffs’ first amended complaint was sustained with leave to amend.

  • Name

    GREGG WELSH VS HADDON B DILLON

  • Case No.

    1337207

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2011

The slander of title action is based on two actions, first that the Holt parties continued to list the properties they didn't own for sale and second, that the Holt parties recorded an assignment of the deed of trust on 6/25/10. The court agrees that the assignment was not a slander a slander of title. However, the res judicata argument fails for various reasons. The San Luis Obispo Co minute order does not mention Rutherford.

  • Name

    GARY HOLT VS. VALENTINE RUTHERFORD

  • Case No.

    56-2011-00390056-CU-OR-VTA

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2011

It has been established in California that “[s]lander of title is the false and unprivileged disparagement of title to real property resulting in pecuniary damage[,] [and] [t]he recording of a deed which casts doubt upon the title is basis for an action in slander of title.” (Cavin Memorial Corp. v. Requa (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 345, 361 [internal citations omitted].)

  • Name

    CCI VS HASSAN

  • Case No.

    MSC21-01116

  • Hearing

    Apr 07, 2022

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

SustainedAs to the Demurrer, the claim of slander is not barred by the statute of limitations on its face. The Complaint states that the Defendant began to make the slanderous statements in January 2016.The Complaint states the basis for the slander claim.

  • Name

    JOSEPH GOLSHAN VS WANDA CANNON

  • Case No.

    SC127506

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2017

Defendants California Highway Patrol and Officer Butler’s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Eighth Cause of Action for Slander Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 Defendants’ special motion to strike the Plaintiffs’ eighth cause of action for slander is GRANTED, and unopposed.

  • Name

    RICHARD BARRY ET AL. VS CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18CV-05043

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2019

  • County

    Merced County, CA

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

The statute of limitations on a defamation or slander claim starts at the time of publication. California Code of Civil Procedure section 340 requires that actions, involving “libel [and/or] slander,” must be brought “within one year.” (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §340(c).) The demurrer is unopposed. As a result, defendant’s demurrers to both causes of action in the action are sustained without leave to amend, and the case is dismissed.

  • Case No.

    L23-00001

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2023

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

(Note: This motion addresses the action for slander. The action for slander (originally case number 1372630) was consolidated with the action for slander of title (case number 1337207). References herein to “this action” are to the action for slander only.) On November 18, 2009, Robert D. Zacky and Lillian D. Zacky, trustees of the Robert D. Zacky and Lillian D. Zacky Trust dated July 26, 1988, through their representative Scott Zacky (“Zacky”), presented an offer to the Welshes to purchase the Property.

  • Name

    GREGG WELSH VS HADDON B DILLON

  • Case No.

    1337207

  • Hearing

    Jun 04, 2012

Plaintiffs contend that they have alleged slander under three out of the above five categories, two of them being slander per se. The slander per se categories that plaintiffs believe are implicated here are the first(a statement charging plaintiff (Mrs.

  • Name

    KELLI ASKEW VS. CLOVIS COMMUNITY MEDICAL CENTER

  • Case No.

    20CECG00682

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2021

  • County

    Fresno County, CA

“A slander that falls within the first four subdivisions of Civil Code section 46 is slander per se and requires no proof of actual damages. [Citation.] 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.]” (Regalia v. The Nethercutt Collection (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 361, 367.)

  • Name

    GREGG WELSH ET AL VS HADDON DILLON ET AL

  • Case No.

    1372630

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2011

The judgment specifically states that Cross-complainants are the prevailing parties and are entitled costs and attorney’s fees as to the slander of title cause of action. Initially, the Court notes that the appropriate measure for an attorney fee award in a slander of title case is “the expense of legal proceedings necessary to remove the doubt cost by the disparagement…” Seeley v. Seymour (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 844, 865.

  • Name

    DONNA SALMONSON ET AL VS. JOSHUA ORENSTEIN ET AL

  • Case No.

    CU20-084460

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2023

  • County

    Nevada County, CA

First Cause of Action for Slander Per Se “‘Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means which: [¶] 1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime; [¶] 2. Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease; [¶] 3.

  • Name

    MYONG HUI KIM VS JOSEPH AHN

  • Case No.

    BC672252

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2018

Slander or disparagement of title occurs when a person, without a privilege to do so, publishes a false statement that disparages title to property and causes the owner thereof some special pecuniary loss or damage. [Citation.] The elements of the tort are (1) a publication, (2) without privilege or justification, (3) falsity, and (4) direct pecuniary loss. [Citations.]

  • Name

    RAJ C GUPTA VS RODRIGUEZ LAW GROUP, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV22065

  • Hearing

    Dec 22, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DOWNEY Plaintiff/X-Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED as to the 2nd c/a for slander and DENIED as to the 3rd c/a for defamation. ANALYSIS: X-Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings of the 2nd c/a for slander and the 3rd c/a for defamation. X-Defendant argues there is no slander alleged, because there is no oral statement pled. The only statements alleged against X-Defendant emails, which are writings.

  • Name

    IMAN AFROOZ, M,D, VS VINCE DOWNEY

  • Case No.

    SC126850

  • Hearing

    Apr 06, 2018

Actions for slander of title are analogous to malicious prosecution suits. Both are torts based on conduct calculated to result in litigation.

  • Case No.

    MSC21-00770

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2022

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

Judgment: On May 14, 2018, the plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for Slander Per Se and the Third Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress was tried before a jury. The Court granted the directed verdict in part, ruling against Condos on the Slander Per Se claim. On August 3, 2018, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Mr. Alladawi on the Third Cause of Action for IIED, and in favor of Ms. Hicks on the First Cause of Action for Slander Per Se, awarding her damages of $1.00.

  • Name

    HICKS VS ALLADAWI

  • Case No.

    30-2016-00855698-CU-BT-CJC

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2018

Slander is a form of defamation, consisting of a false and unprivileged oral publication. (Civ. Code, §§ 44, 46). To establish a prima facie case for slander, a plaintiff must demonstrate an oral publication to third persons of specified false matter that has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damage. (See Smith v. Maldonado (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 637, 645.)

  • Case No.

    CV2002528

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2022

  • Judge

    12/14/2022

  • County

    Marin County, CA

Slander is a form of defamation, consisting of a false and unprivileged oral publication. (Civ. Code, §§ 44, 46). To establish a prima facie case for slander, a plaintiff must demonstrate an oral publication to third persons of specified false matter that has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damage. (See Smith v. Maldonado (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 637, 645.)

  • Case No.

    CV2002528

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2022

  • Judge

    12/14/2022

  • County

    Marin County, CA

Slander is a form of defamation, consisting of a false and unprivileged oral publication. (Civ. Code, §§ 44, 46). To establish a prima facie case for slander, a plaintiff must demonstrate an oral publication to third persons of specified false matter that has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damage. (See Smith v. Maldonado (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 637, 645.)

  • Case No.

    CV2002528

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2022

  • Judge

    12/14/2022

  • County

    Marin County, CA

Slander is a form of defamation, consisting of a false and unprivileged oral publication. (Civ. Code, §§ 44, 46). To establish a prima facie case for slander, a plaintiff must demonstrate an oral publication to third persons of specified false matter that has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damage. (See Smith v. Maldonado (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 637, 645.)

  • Case No.

    CV2002528

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2022

  • Judge

    12/14/2022

  • County

    Marin County, CA

Slander is a form of defamation, consisting of a false and unprivileged oral publication. (Civ. Code, §§ 44, 46). To establish a prima facie case for slander, a plaintiff must demonstrate an oral publication to third persons of specified false matter that has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damage. (See Smith v. Maldonado (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 637, 645.)

  • Case No.

    CV2002528

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2022

  • Judge

    12/14/2022

  • County

    Marin County, CA

Slander is a form of defamation, consisting of a false and unprivileged oral publication. (Civ. Code, §§ 44, 46). To establish a prima facie case for slander, a plaintiff must demonstrate an oral publication to third persons of specified false matter that has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damage. (See Smith v. Maldonado (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 637, 645.)

  • Case No.

    CV2002528

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2022

  • Judge

    12/14/2022

  • County

    Marin County, CA

Notice Of Motion And Motion For Leave To File Amended To First Amended Complaint For Damages For Slander Of Title SET FOR HEARING ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2008 LINE 4. PLAINTIFF KATHLEEN JONES's Motion For Leave To File First Amended Complaint For Damages For Slander Of Title IS GRANTED. NO OPPOSITION FILED. =(302/PHA)

  • Name

    KATHLEEN MARY JONES VS. PETER J. VAN ZANDT ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC06451362

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2008

If Defendant Valentine R could not slander Plaintiff Holt's title by maintaining the deed of trust, he cannot be liable through the theory of conspiracy to do so either. The deed of trust cannot form the basis for the slander of title action and all references to it in that cause of action should be stricken.

  • Name

    GARY HOLT VS. VALENTINE RUTHERFORD

  • Case No.

    56-2011-00390056-CU-OR-VTA

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2011

Plaintiff further argues that the slander case is closely related to the professional negligence claim and should follow the rules of venue governing that claim. Finally, plaintiff argues that the case should remain in Sacramento as the convenience of witnesses and ends of justice would be furthered by trial in Sacramento. The court finds that venue for the slander cause of action lies only in defendant's county of residence, Amador County. (See Carruth, infra.).

  • Name

    CYNTHIA BARCKLAY VS. KEVIN BLASINGAME

  • Case No.

    34-2008-00023832-CU-MM-GDS

  • Hearing

    Feb 11, 2009

Libel And Slander Proof Of Servce SET FOR HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2008 LINE 4. PLAINTIFF MALINKA MOYE'S Motion Of Opposition To Tentative Ruling.;Vacate Dismissal. Judgment. D.A. To File Charges. Libel And Slander Proof Of Service IS DENIED, IMPROPER MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. =(302/PJM)

  • Name

    MALINKA MOYE VS. RED OAK REALTY

  • Case No.

    CGC05445998

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2008

Slander of Title “Slander or disparagement of title occurs when a person, without a privilege to do so, publishes a false statement that disparages title to property and causes the owner thereof ‘ “some special pecuniary loss or damage.” (Fearon v. Fodera (1915) 169 Cal. 370, 379-380.)” (Sumner Hill Homeowners' Assn., Inc. v. Rio Mesa Holdings, LLC (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4th 999, 1030.)

  • Name

    CSM ENTERPRISES VS. DAVID A. DERUFF, ET AL

  • Case No.

    CV1904698

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2023

  • County

    Marin County, CA

Slander of Title “Slander or disparagement of title occurs when a person, without a privilege to do so, publishes a false statement that disparages title to property and causes the owner thereof ‘ “some special pecuniary loss or damage.” (Fearon v. Fodera (1915) 169 Cal. 370, 379-380.)” (Sumner Hill Homeowners' Assn., Inc. v. Rio Mesa Holdings, LLC (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4th 999, 1030.)

  • Name

    CSM ENTERPRISES VS. DAVID A. DERUFF, ET AL

  • Case No.

    CV1904698

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2023

  • County

    Marin County, CA

Slander of Title “Slander or disparagement of title occurs when a person, without a privilege to do so, publishes a false statement that disparages title to property and causes the owner thereof ‘ “some special pecuniary loss or damage.” (Fearon v. Fodera (1915) 169 Cal. 370, 379-380.)” (Sumner Hill Homeowners' Assn., Inc. v. Rio Mesa Holdings, LLC (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4th 999, 1030.)

  • Name

    CSM ENTERPRISES VS. DAVID A. DERUFF, ET AL

  • Case No.

    CV1904698

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2023

  • County

    Marin County, CA

Slander of Title “Slander or disparagement of title occurs when a person, without a privilege to do so, publishes a false statement that disparages title to property and causes the owner thereof ‘ “some special pecuniary loss or damage.” (Fearon v. Fodera (1915) 169 Cal. 370, 379-380.)” (Sumner Hill Homeowners' Assn., Inc. v. Rio Mesa Holdings, LLC (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4th 999, 1030.)

  • Name

    CSM ENTERPRISES VS. DAVID A. DERUFF, ET AL

  • Case No.

    CV1904698

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2023

  • County

    Marin County, CA

Slander of Title “Slander or disparagement of title occurs when a person, without a privilege to do so, publishes a false statement that disparages title to property and causes the owner thereof ‘ “some special pecuniary loss or damage.” (Fearon v. Fodera (1915) 169 Cal. 370, 379-380.)” (Sumner Hill Homeowners' Assn., Inc. v. Rio Mesa Holdings, LLC (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4th 999, 1030.)

  • Name

    CSM ENTERPRISES VS. DAVID A. DERUFF, ET AL

  • Case No.

    CV1904698

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2023

  • County

    Marin County, CA

Slander of Title “Slander or disparagement of title occurs when a person, without a privilege to do so, publishes a false statement that disparages title to property and causes the owner thereof ‘ “some special pecuniary loss or damage.” (Fearon v. Fodera (1915) 169 Cal. 370, 379-380.)” (Sumner Hill Homeowners' Assn., Inc. v. Rio Mesa Holdings, LLC (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4th 999, 1030.)

  • Name

    CSM ENTERPRISES VS. DAVID A. DERUFF, ET AL

  • Case No.

    CV1904698

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2023

  • County

    Marin County, CA

Slander of Title “Slander or disparagement of title occurs when a person, without a privilege to do so, publishes a false statement that disparages title to property and causes the owner thereof ‘ “some special pecuniary loss or damage.” (Fearon v. Fodera (1915) 169 Cal. 370, 379-380.)” (Sumner Hill Homeowners' Assn., Inc. v. Rio Mesa Holdings, LLC (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4th 999, 1030.)

  • Name

    CSM ENTERPRISES VS. DAVID A. DERUFF, ET AL

  • Case No.

    CV1904698

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2023

  • County

    Marin County, CA

TENTATIVE RULING Defendants Stephanie Ann Martin-Gordon and Marjorie Gordon's demurrer to plaintiff Janis Carol Garrett's third amended complaint ("TAC") is overruled to the first and second causes of action for slander per se and slander pro quod. Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support that there was a series of statements, which were allegedly made by defendant, that were false.

  • Name

    JANIS CAROL GARRETT VS. STEPHANIE ANN MARTIN

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00041713-CU-MC-CTL

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2018

Demurrer to Seventh Cause of Action for Slander of Title and Eighth Cause of Action for Slander of Title Slander of title requires publication; without privilege or justification; which is false; and causes direct and immediate pecuniary loss. “ ‘If the matter is reasonably understood to cast doubt upon the existence or extent of another's interest in land, it is disparaging to the latter's title where it is so understood by the recipient....’” (M.F. Farming, Co. v.

  • Name

    LAZBEN INVESTMENT CO VS LAWRENCE M DEUTSCH

  • Case No.

    BC661702

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

Cross-Defendants’ alleged recording of a lis pendens is a material fact supporting the slander of title cause of action that is now absent from the FACC. Given that there are no new material facts supporting a publication by Cross-Defendants, the slander of title cause of action fails to state a claim. In opposition, the Trust alleges that the slander of title cause of action in the FACC “states each required element for the cause of action alleged.” (Opp., p. 2, ll. 15-16.)

  • Name

    JULI OULREY V. MARY OULREY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19CV-0099

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2019

Motion for summary adjudication by Homero Rochan as to the cause of action for slander is granted. Moving party shifted its burden and opposition failed to create a triable issue of fact. Motion is otherwise denied. Multiple triable issues of fact exist regarding slander of title, conspiracy and slander as to Andre. Triable issues of fact include 5, 9, 12, 13, 60, 61.

  • Name

    HOMERO ROCHAN ET AL VS. JEFF MOSLEY ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC19579925

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2021

  • County

    San Francisco County, CA

Moreover, as to the claim of slander of title, while there is no evidence, that defendant, directly or by conspiring with others, slandered the title to the plaintiffs' entities, the fourth claim alleges slander to the title of property owned by those entities, and there is a triable issue on that point.

  • Name

    BURLINGAME INVESTMENT CORPORATION ET AL VS. HERMAN KWAI ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC08477107

  • Hearing

    Feb 29, 2012

At a minimum triable issues remain as to the sixth cross-claim for Slander. Defamation is effected by libel or slander. (Civ. Code, § 44.)

  • Name

    BAYHEALTH, INC. VS TIFFANY HALL ET AL

  • Case No.

    17CV308342

  • Hearing

    Mar 21, 2019

Notice Of Motion And Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings On Pltf'S First Amended Complaint For Damages (Libel And Slander); Memorandum Of P/A; Set for hearing on Thursday, September 10, 2009, line 10, DEFENDANT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Motion For Judgment on the Pleadings on Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Damages (Libel And Slander). Granted, without leave to amend. No opposition filed.

  • Name

    RAYMOND R. HUFF VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC08483188

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2009

“A slander that falls within the first four subdivisions of Civil Code section 46 is slander per se and requires no proof of actual damages. [Citation.] 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.]” (Regalia v. The Nethercutt Collection (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 361, 367.)

  • Name

    GREGG WELSH ET AL VS HADDON DILLON ET AL

  • Case No.

    1372630

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2011

To plead slander per se with required specificity, [t]he general rule is that the words constituting an alleged [libel/slander] must be specifically identified, if not pleaded verbatim, in the complaint. ( Vogel v. Felice (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1017 n.3, quoting Kahn v. Bower (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1599, 1612.) Plaintiff has not met his burden to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on its cause of action for slander per se.

  • Name

    BRADLEY J. HERMAN VS JOAN CELIA LEE, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV35507

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Slander of title events occurred in mid- to late-2006; slander events occurred in Fall 2009. Damages in one action relate to property; damages in the other are personal. Given that all that effectively remains for Gulf in the slander of title action are issues of whether her statements actually constituted a slander of title, and whether she was acting as Gulf’s agent, the case against Gulf is very limited.

  • Name

    GREGG WELSH VS HADDON B DILLON

  • Case No.

    1337207

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2013

Slander of Title The demurrer to the slander of title cause of action indicates that it is brought under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 337 and 366.2. For the reasons already discussed above, § 366.2 does not apply here. Similarly, § 337 does not apply to a slander of title cause of action. The relevant limitation period is provided by Code of Civil Procedure § 338(g). Thus, § 337 provides no basis for sustaining a demurrer.

  • Name

    CAIN VS. MISTRY

  • Case No.

    MSC16-02362

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2017

Prior to the filing of this motion Cross-Complainants dismissed the First Cause of Action for Slander of Title. The motion addressed only the First Cause of Action for slander of title and no other claims.

  • Name

    HULL V. NOGUERA

  • Case No.

    18-71292

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2019

These allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action for slander per se because they tend to directly injure Plaintiff in respect to his profession and business. III.

  • Name

    MICHAEL ZIMMERMAN ET AL VS FIERSTADT & MAN LLP ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC629535

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2016

Although Defendants contend that Plaintiff''s negligence and slander claims are simply artfully pled claims for equitable indemnity or contribution, this contention appears to fly in the face of the actual allegations in these claims.

  • Name

    MARK E MYLES VS. TODD KATES

  • Case No.

    56-2012-00427476-CU-PO-VTA

  • Hearing

    Apr 24, 2013

Thomas (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 467 is misplaced, as there were no claims of slander of title in that action. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to state a cause of action for slander of title as against Moving Defendant. Accordingly, the demurrer is overruled on this ground.

  • Name

    LUCY HOLDINGS, LLC, A WYOMING LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS KRUPE INDUSTRIES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21CHCV00316

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Defendants' Demurrer to the 1st Cause of Action (Slander per se), the 2nd Cause of Action (Trade Libel), the 3rd Cause of Action (Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage) and the 5th Cause of Action (Unfair Competition) is overruled; the Demurrer is sustained with leave to amend as to the 4th Cause of Action (Injunctive Relief). The Slander per se claim is sufficiently set forth. See Paragraphs 35 and 37 of the Complaint.

  • Name

    DR SEBIS OFFICE INC ET AL VS PATSY WILLIAMS ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC665526

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2018

Defamation is a false, unprivileged and defamatory statement about an individual and may consist of either libel (written) or slander (spoken). The essence of the tort is injury to reputation. (Civil Code § 44, 45, 46; Shively v. Bozanich (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1230, 1242.) Under Civil Code § 46, slander is “a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means” that causes the person damage.

  • Name

    GONZALEZ VS GOMEZ

  • Case No.

    RIC1603942

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2018

Fourth Cause of Action for Slander/Libel Finally, all Defendants demur to the fourth cause of action on the grounds that the allegedly defamatory statement is not set forth. The elements of slander are: (1) a 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 (slander per se), or special damages. (Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 90, 106.)

  • Name

    EXCLUSIVELY AT COMMERCE VS TO, WILSON

  • Case No.

    16K11923

  • Hearing

    Feb 23, 2017

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

The Court further finds that plaintiff cannot establish a probability of prevailing on the slander and conspiracy to commit slander causes of action, as the alleged slanderous statements were made in connection with litigation and entitled to absolute protection under the litigation privilege (Civil Code § 47(b)). Rusheen, supra; Silberg v. Anderson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 205. The Court is unpersuaded by plaintiff’s arguments that the alleged slander was not connected to the litigation.

  • Name

    JAMAL HUSSAIN VS MAKHDOOMA SHARIF

  • Case No.

    VC065638

  • Hearing

    Dec 22, 2016

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

As to the slander claim, Cross-Defendants argue that malice, fraud, or oppression has not been alleged as to slander per se. Punitive damages can be awarded at the discretion of the jury. (Finney v. Lockhart (1950) 35 Cal.2d 161, 163-164.) Here, Integrated argues that Cross-Defendants slandered it in the industry because they were attempting to deflect from their own poor-workmanship and bad conduct. The FACC alleges that the slander was done with malice and an intent to injure Integrated.

  • Name

    OZUNA ELECTRIC COMPANY INC. V. INTEGRATED PROCESS CONTROL ENGINEERING

  • Case No.

    30-2015-00827749-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2016

The elements of a Slander of Title Cause of action are: 1) Plaintiff’s title; must allege ownership of real or personal property; 2) Defendant’s disparagement of title; e.g. false written or oral statement or false claim of interest; 3) Specific pecuniary damage as a result. Davis v. Wood (1943) 61 Cal.App.2d 788, Witkin § 749; Cf. Albertson v. Raboff (1956) 46 Cal.2d 375.

  • Name

    HORACE WILLIAMS JR. ET AL. VS OCWEN LOAN SERVICING ET AL.

  • Case No.

    EC063856

  • Hearing

    May 05, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Code §2924(d)(1)-(2) and therefore cannot form the basis of a slander of title cause of action. Accordingly, the demurrer to the 4th cause of action is sustained without leave to amend.

  • Name

    COACHELLA VINEYARD LUXURY RV PARK LLC VS LEV INVESTMENTS LLC

  • Case No.

    PSC2000222

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2021

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.

  • Name

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

  • Case No.

    19GDCV00819

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2020

Defendant is a "debt collector" by its own representation and Second Amended Complaint contains sufficient allegations showing Defendant's alleged acts are debt collection activity; (3) Demurrer to the Sixth Cause of Action for Slander of Title is Sustained with leave to amend for Plaintiff to allege non-privileged publication serving as the basis of a Slander of Title claim. = (501/REQ)

  • Name

    ANDREA STEINER VS. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC13527954

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2014

Accrual upon discovery of a recorded deed is inconsistent with accrual of a continuing tort: recording the deed gives continuous notice to the world of the claim upon which the slander of title was based. (See Civ. Code, § 1213.) An action for slander of title does not continuously accrue. “Slander of title occurs when there is an unprivileged publication of a false statement which disparages title to property and causes pecuniary loss.” (Stalberg v. Western Title Ins.

  • Name

    MARY LOU MANKOWSKI V. LA CUMBRE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

  • Case No.

    1343277

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2011

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope