What is slander/disparagement of title?

Useful Resources for Slander or Disparagement of Title

Recent Rulings on Slander or Disparagement of Title

176-200 of 1898 results

MUHAMMAD L. KHAN VS PENNYMAC CORP., ET AL

(WaMu), Ahmanson Obligation Company, DLI Properties, LLC, and Quality Loan Service Corp. for (1) cancellation of instruments, (2) wrongful foreclosure, (3) slander of title, (4) violation of Bus. and Prof. Code 17200, et seq., and (5) quiet title. Plaintiffs allege that Khanum Trust is the owner of the real property at 30429 Calle De Suenos, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 by grant deed from Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

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

The cross-complaint alleges causes of action for slander per se, defamation, negligence, and IIED. ANALYSIS: CCP § 437c (p): Burdens of Proof Under CCP § 437c(p)(2) a defendant “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

FAZIO V. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CO.

Plaintiffs contend that judgment on the pleadings on the entire answer and each and every affirmative defense should be granted because the 32 boilerplate affirmative defenses fail to allege sufficient facts to establish such affirmative defenses; the affirmative defenses to the cancel instruments, fraud, and slander of title causes of action must fail, because defendants admitted in unspecified discovery responses that defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank did not have a beneficial interest in the deed of trust at

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

KRISTA LEVITAN VS ROBERT BOOKMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE ROBERT BOOKMAN LIVING TRUST DATED AUGUST 28, 2008, ET AL.

Second Prong: Likelihood of Success on Merits The tort of defamation encompasses both libel and slander. (Civ. Code § 44.) A prima facie case for defamation requires: “(a) a publication that is (b) false, (c) defamatory, and (d) unprivileged, and that has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damage.” (Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 720.) A statement that is actionable for defamation must contain a falsehood. (Summit Bank v. Rogers (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 669, 695.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

BISAGNO V. RESOLVE DEFAULT SERVICES, LLC

.; slander of title; and wrongful foreclosure.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

RAMOS V. MEDINA, ET AL.

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.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

DUBUKE VS. DUBUKE

There is no dispute that Plaintiff’s claims for NIED, IIED and slander were premised on Defendant’s alleged “slanderous statements” to the “EDD, the Ventura District County District Attorney’s Office, Plaintiff’s employers, Plaintiff’s children, Plaintiff’s associates, and other persons.” (Compl. at ¶¶ 24, 60, 66, 74.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

PHAM V. WT CAPITAL LENDER SERVICES INC.

The claims still pending against LEGENDS are:  3rd COA: negligent undertaking;  4th COA: intentional interference with prospective economic advantage;  5th COA: negligent interference with prospective economic advantage;  6th COA: slander of title. LEGENDS previously attacked all four causes of action in an unsuccessful motion for summary judgment, and another unsuccessful oral motion for judgment on the pleadings.

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

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

., Sean Cohen, and Mehran Frozanfar asserting causes of action for: 1) Breach of Contract; 2) Constructive Fraud; 3) Actual Fraud; 4) Conversion; 5) Unjust Enrichment; 6) Slander of Title; 7) Cancellation of Instruments; 8) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; 9) Violation of Business & Professions Code §17200; 10) Quiet Title; and 11) Declaratory Relief. Defendants now seek to disqualify Plaintiff’s counsel on the grounds of conflict of interest.

  • Hearing

    Aug 12, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AMIGO 26 HOLDINGS LLC VS DIANNE TAYLOR ET AL

Third Cause of Action (Slander of Title). Defendant argues that this cause of action is without merit as Defendant has no financial or legal interest in the real property. “The elements of a cause of action for slander of title are (1) a publication, which is (2) without privilege or justification, (3) false, and (4) causes pecuniary loss. (Citation omitted.)” (La Jolla Group II v. Bruce (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 461, 472.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

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

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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HECTOR HERNANDEZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

The operative FAC alleges ten causes of action against Defendants: (1) intentional misrepresentation, (2) concealment, (3) false promise, (4) false imprisonment, (5) kidnapping, (6) stalking in violation of California Civil Code § 1708.7, (7) libel in violation of California Civil Code § 45, (8) slander in violation of California Civil Code § 46, (9) constructive invasion of privacy in violation of California Civil Code § 1708.8, (10) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BELTRAN VS S STAUFFER NC

Section 340 involves the statutes of limitation for statutory penalties or forfeitures, libel, slander, false imprisonment, seduction of a person under the age of consent, payment by bank of forged check, injury or death of an animal, damages in making property seizure and good faith improvement. Section 339 involves oral obligations, certificate, abstract or guaranty of title, title insurance, liability of sheriff or coroner and rescission of oral contract.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

BAAH V. FIRST DC INVESTMENTS LLC, A CORPORATION

. [¶] (c) An action for libel, slander . . . .” Here, the Complaint alleges that the defamation occurred on 11-3-17. (Complaint, ¶¶ 6-8.) Plaintiff did not file this lawsuit until 9-6-19. Thus, the court SUSTAINS the Demurrer as to the first cause of action because the bar of the statute of limitation based on Code of Civil Procedure section 340 clearly appears in the Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

CAMILLE MOSLEY VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, ET AL.

Conversely, “slander can be charged by alleging the substance of the defamatory statement.” (Okun v. Superior Court (1981) 29 Cal.3d 442, 458; see also 5 Witkin, Cal. Proc. (5th ed. 2008) Pleading, § 739.) The Complaint sets forth the substance of these statements (Compl. ¶ 4) and suggests that these statements were orally uttered, not written.

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

BURNLEY V ERB

In addition, plaintiffs assert a slander of title action against defendant Ott, allegedly an HOA safety committee member who allegedly clouded title to the plaintiffs Bowman’s property that resulted in a judgment for damages against the HOA. The 7th cause of action for slander of title solely asserted against defendant OTT seeks to impose personal liability on defendant OTT to indemnify the HOA for paying plaintiffs Bowman. (1st Amended Complaint, paragraphs 20, 47 and 48.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2020

STEVEN POWERS VS MARCOS VIVIAN, ET AL.

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

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

GROUP ONE CONSTRUCTION, INC. V. LA ENCINA DEVELOPMENT, LLC, ET AL.

As to La Encina and Chen’s latter argument, the statute of limitations for a slander cause of action is one year. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 340, subd. (c).) The FAXC alleges that “on August 15, 2017, La Encina materially breached the Contract and terminated Group One’s services.” (FAXC, ¶ 21.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

RYAN WEEDEN VS HOFFMAN

Plaintiffs have asserted causes of action for: (1) quiet title; (2) cancellation of instrument; and (3) slander of title. Defendant moves to strike the entire complaint under California Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP") § 425.16's anti-SLAPP provisions.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

UN A SOHN ET AL VS MICHELLE SIM ET AL

procedural history Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on April 20, 2018, alleging four causes of action: Breach of Duty of Loyalty Fraud Slander Per Se Appropriation of Likeness Sim and Global filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiffs on June 4, 2018, alleging 12 causes of action: Contractual Indemnity Declaratory Relief Implied Equitable Indemnity Breach of Contract Fraud Fraudulent Transfers Illegal Corporate Distributions Against Shareholders On Behalf of Dissolved Corporation By Its Creditors (

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BEATA KAMINSKA VS PARAGON SYSTEMS, ET AL.

Eight and Ninth Cause of Action: Defamation, Property Damage The tort of defamation encompasses both libel and slander. (Civ. Code § 44.) A prima facie case for defamation requires: “(a) a publication that is (b) false, (c) defamatory, and (d) unprivileged, and that has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damage.” (Taus v. Loftus (2007) 40 Cal.4th 683, 720.) A statement that is actionable for defamation must contain a falsehood. (Summit Bank v. Rogers (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 669, 695.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

YURN YANG PARK VS CALOP BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, DBA CALOP AEROGROUND SERVICES

However, pleading slander, as opposed to libel, does not require the same level of particularity. The following passage in Okun v. Superior Court (1981) 29 Cal.3d 442, 458 is instructive: “Defendants contend the allegation of slander is fatally inexact as to time and place of utterance and persons addressed. Yet the pleading does seem certain enough in those respects.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KEVIN DARWIN V. ADVANTIX LENDING, INC., ET AL.

A claim for slander of title requires allegations that the defendant made a false publication without privilege or justification that caused direct pecuniary loss. (Manhattan Loft, LLC v. Mercury Liquors, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1040, 1051.) MERS is not a foreclosing entity in this case and made no publication that could form the basis of a slander of title claim. For the same reason that MERS is not a foreclosing entity, Plaintiff cannot allege a wrongful foreclosure claim against MERS.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

FELIX AJEGBO, CO-TRUSTEES, JUDGMENT CREDITORS ADMINISTRATORS, BENEFICIARIES VS DR. DAVID Y. LEE, MD, ET AL.

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) damages and affirmative relief; (2) slander/fraud on court; (3) breach of covenant; (4) fraud/unjust enrichment; (5) injunctive relief; (6) implicit bias; (7) unlawful surveillance; (8) business disruption; (9) conversion; (10) intentional affliction; (11) exploitation of minors; and (12) tort.

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

VINH HOANG VS TRUNG TRAN ET AL

(Ibid.) 5 The TAC sets forth the following causes of action: (1) Fraud; (2) Breach of Fiduciary 6 Duty; (3) Constructive Fraud; (4) Constructive Fraudulent Transfer; (5) Constructive Trust; 7 (6) Resulting Trust; (7) Conspiracy; (8) Breach of Oral Contract; (9) Breach of the Covenant of 8 Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (10) Slander of Title; (11) Common Counts; (12) Accounting; 9 (13) Conversion; (14) Cancellation of Document; (15) Rescission; (16) Injunctive Relief; and 10 (17) Declaratory Relief. 11 Plaintiff

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2020

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

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.