Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
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
(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.)
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.
BLUSKY RESTORATION CONTRACTORS, LLC, ET AL. VS 13700 SATICOY LLC, ET AL.
20VECV01211
Sep 18, 2023
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).
GAINQUICK LLC VS. JTH HOLDINGS, LLC
30-2016-00874017-CU-OR-CJC
Aug 08, 2018
Orange County, CA
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.)
JAMES S BROWN VS. GONSALO DELATOBA
56-2008-00315805-CU-FR-SIM
Feb 10, 2009
Ventura County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
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.
ALMA D RIVERA VS BARBARA NANIA, ET AL.
21CHCV00042
Aug 31, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
other
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.
PEREZ RECONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS TRACEY RENE WASHINGTON
20STLC00124
Sep 15, 2020
Darren L Vahle
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).
GAINQUICK LLC VS JTH HOLDINGS LLC
30-2016-00874017
Jul 17, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.
GREGG WELSH VS HADDON B DILLON
1337207
Mar 22, 2010
Santa Barbara 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.
EC06531
Oct 14, 2016
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.
PLATINUM REALTY DEVELOPMENT INC. VS. JEFFREY CHOI ET AL
EC065316
Oct 14, 2016
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.]
MARY LOU MANKOWSKI V. LA CUMBRE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
1343277
Apr 18, 2011
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.]
C-M HOPE STREET, ET AL. V. EDMUND Y. SUN AND JANE V. SUN AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE
2015-1-CV-288062
Mar 29, 2018
Santa Clara County, CA
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.
WILLIAM C EVES TRUSTEE OF THE WILLIAM AND MEGAN EVES FAMILY TRUST DATED 12/14/2007 VS CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
37-2015-00039573-CU-BC-CTL
May 17, 2017
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
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.
KELSEY JOHNSON VS. JOHN M MEYER
34-2011-00101133-CU-OR-GDS
Dec 15, 2011
Sacramento County, CA
Real Property
other
“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).
GAINQUICK LLC VS. JTH HOLDINGS, LLC
30-2016-00874017-CU-OR-CJC
Aug 15, 2018
Orange County, CA
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.
TONY TO CHONG LOO, ET AL. VS ZIXI LI, ET AL.
19PSCV00880
Feb 18, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
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.
ANTHONY WALKER, ET AL. VS ESTEBAN ACUNA
23VECV01211
Dec 12, 2023
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.)
MCCOY PLAZA, L.P., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL. VS FIRTH 1, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
22CMCV00498
Jun 22, 2023
Los Angeles 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.]
JAMES BELL ET AL VS HIDDEN VALLEY LANE ASSOCIATION ET AL
1414605
Nov 13, 2013
Santa Barbara 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.” ’ [Citation.] The elements of the tort are (1) a publication, (2) without privilege or justification, (3) falsity, and (4) direct pecuniary loss. [Citations.]
VICTOR D. CONTRERAS V. STEVEN E. PENNER
18CV02844
Dec 04, 2018
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
TAMAZI GOGADZE VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL, ET AL.
22BBCV00172
Aug 14, 2023
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.)
PARKASH PABLA ET AL. VS GURSHARN PABLA ET AL.
20CV-03476
Dec 02, 2021
Merced 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.)
CALVARY CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST VS THREE DESERT STREAMS INC
RIC1826920
Aug 16, 2021
Riverside 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.)
CALVARY CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST VS THREE DESERT STREAMS INC
RIC1826920
Aug 14, 2021
Riverside 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.)
CALVARY CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST VS THREE DESERT STREAMS INC
RIC1826920
Aug 15, 2021
Riverside County, CA
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.
CESAR ROMERO ET AL. VS LI-CHUAN SHIH ET AL.
EC064933
May 22, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
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.
HARBOR CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP VS. THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD
30-2014-00709165
Apr 01, 2021
Orange County, CA
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.
DONNIE MULDROW VS LADERA CREST HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ET AL
BC720986
May 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
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.
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
19SMCV00850
Aug 11, 2020
H. Jay Ford
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
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.)
JOSUE RAMOS VS FRANCISCO MEDINA ET AL
19CV359044
Aug 13, 2020
Santa Clara County, CA
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.
MICHAEL CRUZ, ET AL. V. NEW PENN FINANCIAL LLC
17CV-0503
Nov 09, 2017
San Luis Obispo County, CA
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).
ALMA D RIVERA VS BARBARA NANIA, ET AL.
21CHCV00042
Jul 22, 2021
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.
LEPE VS GARCIA
RIC1714222
Oct 29, 2019
Riverside County, CA
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.)
SERGIO DEL TORO VS BANK OF AMEIRCA A NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ET
BC637592
Jul 19, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
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
LAW OFFICE OF EVAN L GINSBURG VS SAVIN
RIC1905234
Oct 06, 2020
Riverside County, CA
“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.
BARBARA HOLDINGS, INC. V. 2006 CATALINA FUND, LLC, ET AL.
18CV332880
Aug 01, 2019
Presiding
Santa Clara County, CA
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.
RACHEL MIZRAHI, ET.AL. VS. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL, ET.AL.
EC065914
Jan 06, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Quiet Title
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.
MALAYA KEYS VS. FIVE RIVER HOSPITALITY LLC
C23-02409
Feb 02, 2024
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
LOEFFLER VS. ASSOCIATION LIEN SERVICES, INC.
30-2016-00873201-CU-OR-CJC
Oct 11, 2018
Orange 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.
LEWIS VS. MAIN STREET SPORTS BAR
CV15-00101
Oct 14, 2015
Plumas County, CA
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].)
CCI VS HASSAN
MSC21-01116
Apr 07, 2022
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
CALVARY CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST VS THREE DESERT STREAMS INC
RIC1826920
Sep 28, 2020
Riverside County, CA
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.
PALMS & SANDS OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. V BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.
PSC 1702427
Feb 07, 2018
Riverside County, CA
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).
MARIOS POLYCHRONAS, AS TRUSTEE OF THE MARIOS POLYCHRONAS INTER-VIVOS TRUST OF 2004 VS MONICA L. COSTELLO, ET AL.
21CHCV00301
Jul 20, 2021
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. [Citation.] The elements of the tort are (1) a publication, (2) without privilege or justification, (3) falsity, and (4) direct pecuniary loss. [Citations.]
RAJ C GUPTA VS RODRIGUEZ LAW GROUP, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
23STCV22065
Dec 22, 2023
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.
BURKE VS. ORTIZ
30-2018-00966860
May 21, 2018
Orange County, CA
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.
GREGG WELSH VS HADDON B DILLON
1337207
Jun 20, 2011
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
GARY HOLT VS. VALENTINE RUTHERFORD
56-2011-00390056-CU-OR-VTA
Sep 30, 2011
Ventura County, CA
Real Property
other
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.
JOSEPH GOLSHAN VS WANDA CANNON
SC127506
Sep 12, 2017
Los Angeles 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.)
CSM ENTERPRISES VS. DAVID A. DERUFF, ET AL
CV1904698
Sep 01, 2023
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.)
CSM ENTERPRISES VS. DAVID A. DERUFF, ET AL
CV1904698
Aug 31, 2023
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.)
CSM ENTERPRISES VS. DAVID A. DERUFF, ET AL
CV1904698
Sep 05, 2023
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.)
CSM ENTERPRISES VS. DAVID A. DERUFF, ET AL
CV1904698
Aug 30, 2023
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.)
CSM ENTERPRISES VS. DAVID A. DERUFF, ET AL
CV1904698
Sep 02, 2023
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.)
CSM ENTERPRISES VS. DAVID A. DERUFF, ET AL
CV1904698
Sep 03, 2023
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.)
CSM ENTERPRISES VS. DAVID A. DERUFF, ET AL
CV1904698
Sep 04, 2023
Marin 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.
GREGG WELSH VS HADDON B DILLON
1337207
Jun 04, 2012
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
KELLI ASKEW VS. CLOVIS COMMUNITY MEDICAL CENTER
20CECG00682
Sep 29, 2021
Fresno County, CA
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.
RICHARD BARRY ET AL. VS CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL ET AL.
18CV-05043
Mar 14, 2019
Merced County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
“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.)
GREGG WELSH ET AL VS HADDON DILLON ET AL
1372630
Feb 15, 2011
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
L23-00001
Sep 18, 2023
Contra Costa 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.
MYONG HUI KIM VS JOSEPH AHN
BC672252
Feb 22, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
DONNA SALMONSON ET AL VS. JOSHUA ORENSTEIN ET AL
CU20-084460
Jul 28, 2023
Nevada 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.
IMAN AFROOZ, M,D, VS VINCE DOWNEY
SC126850
Apr 06, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Actions for slander of title are analogous to malicious prosecution suits. Both are torts based on conduct calculated to result in litigation.
MSC21-00770
Jan 28, 2022
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.
HICKS VS ALLADAWI
30-2016-00855698-CU-BT-CJC
Oct 19, 2018
Orange 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.)
CV2002528
Nov 04, 2022
12/14/2022
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.)
CV2002528
Nov 02, 2022
12/14/2022
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.)
CV2002528
Nov 07, 2022
12/14/2022
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.)
CV2002528
Nov 03, 2022
12/14/2022
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.)
CV2002528
Nov 05, 2022
12/14/2022
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.)
CV2002528
Nov 01, 2022
12/14/2022
Marin County, CA
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.
GARY HOLT VS. VALENTINE RUTHERFORD
56-2011-00390056-CU-OR-VTA
Nov 16, 2011
Ventura County, CA
Real Property
other
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.).
CYNTHIA BARCKLAY VS. KEVIN BLASINGAME
34-2008-00023832-CU-MM-GDS
Feb 11, 2009
Sacramento County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
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)
KATHLEEN MARY JONES VS. PETER J. VAN ZANDT ET AL
CGC06451362
Jan 15, 2008
San Francisco County, CA
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.
HORACE WILLIAMS JR. ET AL. VS OCWEN LOAN SERVICING ET AL.
EC063856
May 05, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
JULI OULREY V. MARY OULREY, ET AL.
19CV-0099
Oct 16, 2019
San Luis Obispo 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.
JANIS CAROL GARRETT VS. STEPHANIE ANN MARTIN
37-2016-00041713-CU-MC-CTL
May 31, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
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)
MALINKA MOYE VS. RED OAK REALTY
CGC05445998
Mar 05, 2008
San Francisco County, CA
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.
LAZBEN INVESTMENT CO VS LAWRENCE M DEUTSCH
BC661702
Oct 03, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
At a minimum triable issues remain as to the sixth cross-claim for Slander. Defamation is effected by libel or slander. (Civ. Code, § 44.)
BAYHEALTH, INC. VS TIFFANY HALL ET AL
17CV308342
Mar 21, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
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.
HOMERO ROCHAN ET AL VS. JEFF MOSLEY ET AL
CGC19579925
Oct 25, 2021
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.
BURLINGAME INVESTMENT CORPORATION ET AL VS. HERMAN KWAI ET AL
CGC08477107
Feb 29, 2012
San Francisco 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.)
GREGG WELSH ET AL VS HADDON DILLON ET AL
1372630
Apr 11, 2011
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
BRADLEY J. HERMAN VS JOAN CELIA LEE, ET AL.
19STCV35507
Apr 25, 2023
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.
GREGG WELSH VS HADDON B DILLON
1337207
Sep 16, 2013
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
RAYMOND R. HUFF VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL
CGC08483188
Sep 10, 2009
San Francisco County, CA
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.
CAIN VS. MISTRY
MSC16-02362
Dec 01, 2017
Contra Costa County, CA
However, it is unclear how this theory of the cause of action amounts to slander of title of the subject property. “The gravamen of an action for wrongful disparagement of title to real property is the invasion of the interest in its marketability. [Citation.] The conventional elements of damage are the pecuniary loss caused by the impairment of vendibility of the interest in the property and the cost of clearing title from the disparaging claim.
DAVID MICHAEL, AN INDIVIDUAL VS DIGETTE TRASK, AN INDIVIDUAL
19BBCV00800
Feb 05, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Other
Intellectual Property
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.
HULL V. NOGUERA
18-71292
Mar 15, 2019
Mendocino County, CA
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.
MICHAEL ZIMMERMAN ET AL VS FIERSTADT & MAN LLP ET AL
BC629535
Nov 22, 2016
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.” (Fearon v. Fodera (1915) 169 Cal. 370, 379-380.) The elements of the tort are (1) a publication, (2) without privilege or justification, (3) falsity, and (4) direct pecuniary loss. (Truck Ins. Exchange v. Bennett (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 75, 84; Howard v.
CSM ENTERPRISES VS. DAVID A. DERUFF, ET AL
CV1904698
Jul 12, 2023
Marin 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.” (Fearon v. Fodera (1915) 169 Cal. 370, 379-380.) The elements of the tort are (1) a publication, (2) without privilege or justification, (3) falsity, and (4) direct pecuniary loss. (Truck Ins. Exchange v. Bennett (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 75, 84; Howard v.
CSM ENTERPRISES VS. DAVID A. DERUFF, ET AL
CV1904698
Jul 18, 2023
Marin 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.” (Fearon v. Fodera (1915) 169 Cal. 370, 379-380.) The elements of the tort are (1) a publication, (2) without privilege or justification, (3) falsity, and (4) direct pecuniary loss. (Truck Ins. Exchange v. Bennett (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 75, 84; Howard v.
CSM ENTERPRISES VS. DAVID A. DERUFF, ET AL
CV1904698
Jul 14, 2023
Marin 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.” (Fearon v. Fodera (1915) 169 Cal. 370, 379-380.) The elements of the tort are (1) a publication, (2) without privilege or justification, (3) falsity, and (4) direct pecuniary loss. (Truck Ins. Exchange v. Bennett (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 75, 84; Howard v.
CSM ENTERPRISES VS. DAVID A. DERUFF, ET AL
CV1904698
Jul 17, 2023
Marin 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.” (Fearon v. Fodera (1915) 169 Cal. 370, 379-380.) The elements of the tort are (1) a publication, (2) without privilege or justification, (3) falsity, and (4) direct pecuniary loss. (Truck Ins. Exchange v. Bennett (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 75, 84; Howard v.
CSM ENTERPRISES VS. DAVID A. DERUFF, ET AL
CV1904698
Jul 16, 2023
Marin County, CA
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.
MARK E MYLES VS. TODD KATES
56-2012-00427476-CU-PO-VTA
Apr 24, 2013
Ventura County, CA
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.
LUCY HOLDINGS, LLC, A WYOMING LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS KRUPE INDUSTRIES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
21CHCV00316
Feb 08, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
EXCLUSIVELY AT COMMERCE VS TO, WILSON
16K11923
Feb 23, 2017
Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco
Los Angeles County, CA
Contract
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.
JAMAL HUSSAIN VS MAKHDOOMA SHARIF
VC065638
Dec 22, 2016
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.
OZUNA ELECTRIC COMPANY INC. V. INTEGRATED PROCESS CONTROL ENGINEERING
30-2015-00827749-CU-BC-CJC
Sep 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.