Search anything: case name, case number, motion type, judge, or party

1-25 of 865 results

FARMERS INS EXCHANGE VS PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA INC ET AL

First, it contends the economic loss rule completely bars Plaintiff’s claims. Second, it contends Plaintiff cannot possibly show the cause of the fire, as the whereabouts of the parts of the car that caught on fire and burned are not known. a. Economic Loss Rule Defendant’s first argument is that Plaintiff’s complaint is barred by the economic loss rule.

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

TONGTAI MACHINE AND TOOL CO., LTD. V. NANO SYSTEM, INC., ET AL.

Additionally, Defendants argue for the first time on reply that “[t]he claim is also barred by the economic loss rule as discussed in the demurrer.” (Reply, p. 2:9-10.) The economic loss rule was not an argument raised in the motion to strike and is thus untimely. In any event, for the reasons discussed in section II, Defendants did not substantiate their economic loss rule argument. Accordingly, the motion to strike punitive damages allegations is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2018

MILISA HOUSTON VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Robinson expressly recognized the fraudulent inducement exception to the economic loss rule and did not modify it. Rather, it created a new and limited exception to the economic loss rule based affirmative misrepresentations on which the plaintiff relies and which expose the plaintiff to liability for personal damages.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MILISA HOUSTON VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Robinson expressly recognized the fraudulent inducement exception to the economic loss rule and did not modify it. Rather, it created a new and limited exception to the economic loss rule based affirmative misrepresentations on which the plaintiff relies and which expose the plaintiff to liability for personal damages.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MILISA HOUSTON VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Robinson expressly recognized the fraudulent inducement exception to the economic loss rule and did not modify it. Rather, it created a new and limited exception to the economic loss rule based affirmative misrepresentations on which the plaintiff relies and which expose the plaintiff to liability for personal damages.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MILISA HOUSTON VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Robinson expressly recognized the fraudulent inducement exception to the economic loss rule and did not modify it. Rather, it created a new and limited exception to the economic loss rule based affirmative misrepresentations on which the plaintiff relies and which expose the plaintiff to liability for personal damages.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MILISA HOUSTON VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Robinson expressly recognized the fraudulent inducement exception to the economic loss rule and did not modify it. Rather, it created a new and limited exception to the economic loss rule based affirmative misrepresentations on which the plaintiff relies and which expose the plaintiff to liability for personal damages.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

MILISA HOUSTON VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Robinson expressly recognized the fraudulent inducement exception to the economic loss rule and did not modify it. Rather, it created a new and limited exception to the economic loss rule based affirmative misrepresentations on which the plaintiff relies and which expose the plaintiff to liability for personal damages.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ORRIN KARP VS. MARIAN RUBINSTEIN

TENTATIVE RULING 1c/a Fraud: SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE Aas v Sup Ct (2000) 24 Cal. 4th 627, 643 states the economic loss rule. The parties have not addressed the economic loss rule as applied to fraud and failed to cite to the seminal case on the economic loss rule as applied to an intentional tort. The CA Supreme Court addressed the economic loss rule as it applied to fraud in Robinson Helicopter Co v Dana Corp (2004) 34 Cal 4th 979.

  • Hearing

    Oct 31, 2018

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TUAZON VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC

Allied Builders Corp. (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 541 (construction defect case, no discussion of economic loss rule); Erlich v. Menezes (1999) 21 Cal.4th 543 (construction defect case, no discussion of economic loss rule); Glendale Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn v. Marina View Heights Dev. Co. (1977) 150 Cal.App.3d 140 (involving loan agreement); Johnson v. Ford Motor Company (defective vehicle case, no discussion of economic loss rule).) As such, the cases are inapplicable.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2019

ALVARADO V. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

But it is sustained on a discrete ground: the economic loss rule. Our Supreme Court explained the breadth of the Economic Loss Rule in Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979. But no California case, published or unpublished, has addressed this rule in the context of a Lemon Law case. Federal courts have wrestled with this issue, but those decisions are neither controlling nor persuasive, and have recently been inconsistent. (Compare, e.g., Zagarian v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2020

ANTONIO TEMORES REYES, ET AL. VS FCA US LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Because Plaintiffs’ fraud claim is not barred by the economic loss rule, Defendants’ demurrers are OVERRULED. Unless waived, notice of ruling by Plaintiffs.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

OROZCO VS. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

Therefore, the economic loss rule precludes Plaintiffs’ fraudulent concealment claim. Plaintiffs cannot avail themselves of the “narrow” exception to the economic loss rule articulated in the California Supreme Court decision Robinson, 34 Cal. 4th at 993. “Although Robinson permitted a claim for fraud, its holding does not apply to every fraud claim between contracting parties.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2019

C.I. ENERGIA SOLAR S.A., INC., VS. BAGATELOS GLASS SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL

s cross-claims, none of which allege property damage and thus the property damage "exception" to the economic loss rule is inapplicable. Nor do any of the proposed cross-claims adequately allege a "special relationship" between Energia Solar and the proposed new cross-defendants. Energia Solar's argument that the economic loss rule does not apply to services lacks merit. Northern American Chemical Company v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Apr 26, 2017

NABIL FADEL VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL.

Whether or not the economic loss rule applies should not depend on the number of people affected. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s claim is not barred by the economic loss rule. Accordingly, BMW NA’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the sixth cause of action is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2019

ELVIA MARTINEZ VS FCA US LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Defendant argues that the fourth cause of action for negligent repair is barred by the economic loss rule for the simple reason that Plaintiff fails to allege personal injuries or property damage. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that California courts clearly recognize an exception to the economic loss rule in cases involving the negligent performance of services, citing to Northern American Chemical Co.

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ABDUL OUHANE VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC

Economic Loss Rule The economic loss rule provides that where a purchaser’s expectations in a sale are frustrated because the product he bought is not working properly, his remedy is said to be in contract alone, for he has suffered only ‘economic’ losses. (Robinson Helicopter, Inc. v. Dana Corp (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 08, 2019

HOYT, ET AL. V. FCA US LLC, ET AL.

FCA also argues that the seventh cause of action is barred by the economic loss rule.

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2019

GACHO VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

The court said that the economic loss rule requires a purchaser to recover in contract for purely economic loss due to disappointed expectations, unless he or she can demonstrate harm above and beyond a broken contractual promise. Ibid. Robinson Helicopter court distinguished the facts before it from those presented in Jimenez v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 473, where the economic loss rule was applied in the strict liability context. Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2016

VIRGINIA SARABIAN V. SYNGENTA SEEDS, LLC

Defendant argues that the damages which plaintiff seeks to recover based upon these claims are purely economic thus they are barred by the economic loss rule. This argument is addressed below. The Economic Loss Rule The economic loss rule provides: where a purchaser’s expectations in a sale are frustrated because the product he bought is not working properly, his remedy is said to be in contract alone, for he has suffered only economic losses. (Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp.

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2019

SOUTHWEST COLLECTION SERVICE, INC. V. LU

The economic loss rule requires a purchaser to recover in contract for purely economic loss due to disappointed expectations, unless he can demonstrate harm above and beyond a broken contractual promise. [Citation.] Quite simply, the economic loss rule ‘prevent[s] the law of contract and the law of tort from dissolving one into the other.’ [Citation.]” (Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988.) The economic loss rule applies to negligence actions. (Id. at p. 989.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2018

MEIRAV GOLAN ET AL VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA INC

The economic loss rule bars a plaintiff with a remedy in contract from “converting” that cause of action into a tort. Here, the Complaint alleges only violations of warranties, and falls squarely within the “economic lossrule. Golan’s Opposition merely recite the allegations in the Complaint. (Opposition at pp. 2–3.) There are no allegations similar to the facts in Robinson that would preclude the application of the economic loss rule.

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2017

WILLIAM FRULLANI VS. SAN NUTRITION

Discussion: Both the negligence and Product's liability causes of action require a discussion of the economic loss rule and the rule which requires a physical or bodily injury in order to support a negligence of product's liability cause of action. The California Supreme Court summarized the economic loss rule in Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

POMPOSO VS. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

While it is true that in dicta the court in Robinson does reference the potential liability for damages to third parties, potential liability, alone, is not sufficient to overcome the economic loss rule.

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2020

RICHARD MARCHINSKY, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

In opposition Plaintiffs cannot point to any affirmative misrepresentations by Defendant, instead arguing this Court should expand the exception to the Economic Loss Rule by adopting the reasoning of a federal district court. The Court declines Plaintiffs’ invitation. Therefore, no exception to the Economic Loss Rule applies.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 35     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.