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

851-875 of 888 results

VIK VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Lastly, defendant challenges the first five causes of action as barred by the economic loss rule. II. Standard Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(p)(2) states in part: A defendant or cross-defendant has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if that 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 that cause of action.

  • Hearing

    May 12, 2016

PETRA ANN PARKER VS CHASE BANK/CORP.

Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 989; see id. at 988 [“[T]he economic loss rule ‘prevent[s] the law of contract and the law of tort from dissolving one into the other.’ [Citation.]”].) Further, the third cause of action also fails to allege proximate cause and resulting damages. Accordingly, the Demurrer to the third cause of action is SUSTAINED. C. Fourth Cause of Action (Invasion of Privacy) “A privacy violation based on the common law tort of intrusion has two elements.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2018

  • Judge

    Wendy Chang or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARIA DODOS VS CHUCK AND JACKIE WEISSMAN, DOES 1-25

Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal. 4th 627, 643 (superseded by statute unrelated to the economic loss rule). The rule “prevents the law of contract and the law of tort from dissolving into one another.” Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal. 4th 979, 988. “Generally, ‘damages for mental suffering and emotional distress are . . . not compensable in contract actions.’” Plotnik v. Meihaus (2102) 208 Cal. App. 4th 1590, 1602 (citation omitted).

  • Hearing

    Oct 24, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

YVONNE BURKS VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

Defendant demurs to the seventh cause of action on the grounds that: (1) the three-year statute of limitations bars Plaintiff’s seventh cause of action in the TAC; (2) Plaintiff’s allegations fail to establish a fraud by omission cause of action; (3) any alleged fraud lacks specificity; (4) Plaintiff’s concealment allegations are insufficient as a matter of law; (5) the economic loss rule bars the seventh cause of action; and (6) concealment cannot be based on non-actionable puffery.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2019

LEIRE FUNK AKA LEIRE FERRO V. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, ET AL.

Even if there was a duty of care, the moving defendants argue the claim is barred by the economic loss rule. (See Memo of P’s & A’s at p. 18; see also San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. W.R. Grace & Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1318, 1327 [a plaintiff may recover in tort for physical injury to person or property, but not for purely economic losses that may be recovered in a contract action].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 12, 2018

ABRAHAM H GOMEZ VS HAVANA VIEJA CUBAN RESTAURANT ET AL

Third Cause of Action: Fraud Moving Defendants argue that the third cause of action fails because Plaintiff has failed to allege fraud with the requisite specificity, and the economic loss rule prohibits recovery[3]. Specificity The elements of fraud are: “(a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or ‘scienter’); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.” (Charnay v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MELLO VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

., not pled with sufficient particularity, time-barred, and barred by the economic loss rule), and the motion to strike attacked the prayer for punitive damages. Plaintiff filed opposition. ROA 37-39. On June 14, 2019, the court issued a detailed ruling that sustained the demurrer and granted the motion to strike, both with leave to amend. ROA 43-45. Plaintiff filed the second amended complaint ("SAC") on June 28, 2019. ROA 46.

  • Hearing

    Sep 05, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ERICA ESCORSIA VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC

Kia finally argues that the fraud claims are barred by the economic loss rule, which “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.” (Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (“Robinson”) (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988.) But the doctrine does not apply “where the contract was fraudulently induced,” as is alleged here. (Id. at p. 989–90.)

  • Hearing

    May 29, 2019

NYNIKKA PALMER VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

Defendant GM now generally demurs to the Seventh Cause of Action on the grounds that the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and violates the Economic Loss Rule, and Defendant specially demurs for uncertainty. Defendant also moves to strike the request for punitive damages. Plaintiff opposes the demurrer and motion to strike.

  • Hearing

    May 30, 2019

REFLECTIONS DIAMONDS INC ET AL VS LLOYD'S OF LONDON ET AL

Even if it were, the economic loss rule would bar Plaintiff’s recovery for negligence just like it bars recovery for fraud, as discussed above. Therefore, the demurrer is SUSTAINED, without leave, as to this cause of action. 7th COA: Breach of Oral and Implied K This cause of action is based on the agency allegations discussed above in connection with the Fraud COA. (FAC ¶¶85-86).

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CHI LAM M.D. TARGET BENEFIT PLAN VS JOHN R. EDWARDS, ET AL.

Issue No.6: Fourth Cause of Action Plaintiff fails to respond to Defendants’ argument that the negligence cause of action in the FAC is barred by the economic loss rule. (Motion at 19:20-20:11.) The Court finds that Plaintiff has conceded to the argument of Defendants on this point. (Heglin v. F.C.B.A. Market (1945) 70 Cal.App.2d 803, 806.)

  • Hearing

    Dec 27, 2019

DANNY RAY BUTLER VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

Defendant GM now demurs to the seventh cause of action as barred by the statute of limitations, for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, for violation of the economic loss rule and for uncertainty. Defendant also moves to strike the request for punitive damages from the Prayer. Plaintiff opposes the demurrer and motion to strike.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2018

EDWARD RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. VS KIA MOTOR AMERICA, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Kia Motors also argues that the fraud claims are barred by the economic loss rule, which “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.” (Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (“Robinson”) (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988.) However, the doctrine does not apply “where the contract was fraudulently induced,” as is alleged here. (Id. at p. 989–90.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KATIE O CONNELL MARSH VS GAUMONT TELEVISION USA LLC

Plaintiff demurs to the SAXC on the grounds that: (1) the second, third, fifth, and sixth causes of action are barred by the statute of limitations; (2) the fifth and sixth causes of action both fail to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action; and (3) the second, third, and sixth causes of action are barred by the economic loss rule. Plaintiff also filed a motion to strike the third cause of action from the SAXC.

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2020

EYMI ROSALBA MARTINEZ ET AL VS JOSE CASTILLEJA ET AL

It turns on the economic loss rule – a doctrine Defendant has not mentioned – and holds that the plaintiff in that case could not recover emotional distress damages based on tort liability for intentional conduct because there was no evidence of physical injury to the plaintiff or breach of duty on the part of the defendants that would support liability for infliction of emotional distress under the law of negligence. (Id. at 1229.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2019

ERICA ESCORSIA VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC

Because the Court sustains the demurrer by reference to the applicable limitations period, the Court does not address Kia’s argument that the fraud claims are inadequately pleaded and barred by the economic loss rule. 15–20.) IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY — FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Kia argues that the Fifth Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability is time-barred. (Demurrer at pp. 20–23.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2019

WARREN ELLIOTT ET AL VS FILIPPINI FINANCIAL GROUP INC ET AL

Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 993 [economic loss rule does not bar tort remedies for fraud].) The allegations of the FAC, liberally construed, are that Lawyers Mortgage agreed to participate in, and actively assisted in, the scheme of the Filippini Defendants discussed throughout the FAC. (E.g., FAC, ¶¶ 10-12.) Thus, for purposes of pleading, this allegation of emotional distress is not “irrelevant matter” and the court declines to strike paragraph 26.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2012

LG BURKE INC VS DAREN HAGEN ET AL

Defendants further argue that the economic loss rule bars Plaintiff’s cause of action for fraud, as Plaintiff has not asserted a harm above and beyond a broken contractual promise. Defendants contend that instead, Plaintiff’s alleged harm stems from disappointed expectations and asserts performance by Defendants when such performance is not yet due.

  • Hearing

    May 06, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LUIS GONZALEZ , ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, ET AL.

Kia finally argues that the Sixth Cause of Action is barred by the economic loss rule, which “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.” (Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (“Robinson”) (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988; Motion at p. 16.) However, the doctrine does not apply “where the contract was fraudulently induced,” as is alleged here. (Id. at p. 989–90.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BOND 330 UNION LLC VS ALPHA CONSTRUCTION CO INC ET AL

The Court will not address Alpha’s argument that the fraud claims are f are barred by the economic loss rule because the argument is raised for the first time in reply, thus, depriving Plaintiff of an opportunity to respond. Based on the foregoing, the demurrer to the fourth and fifth causes of action are SUSTAINED with leave to amend. The motion to strike is MOOT. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2018

EYMI ROSALBA MARTINEZ ET AL VS JOSE CASTILLEJA ET AL

It turns on the economic loss rule – a doctrine Defendant has not mentioned – and holds that the plaintiff in that case could not recover emotional distress damages based on tort liability for intentional conduct because there was no evidence of physical injury to the plaintiff or breach of duty on the part of the defendants that would support liability for infliction of emotional distress under the law of negligence. (Id. at 1229.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2019

AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA INC VS HYSTER YALE GROUP INC

However, “the economic loss rule allows a plaintiff to recover in strict products liability in tort when a product defect causes damage to 'other property,' that is, property other than the product itself. The law of contractual warranty governs damage to the product itself. [Citations.]” (Jimenez v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 473, 483.) Plaintiff contends the defective Truck damaged the two printers, i.e., property other than the allegedly defective product itself.

  • Hearing

    Apr 09, 2019

AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA INC VS HYSTER YALE GROUP INC

However, “the economic loss rule allows a plaintiff to recover in strict products liability in tort when a product defect causes damage to 'other property,' that is, property other than the product itself. The law of contractual warranty governs damage to the product itself. [Citations.]” (Jimenez v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 473, 483.) Plaintiff contends the defective Truck damaged the two printers, i.e., property other than the allegedly defective product itself.

  • Hearing

    Apr 30, 2019

WONDERWORKS PTE. LTD. V. HEWLETT-PACKARD CO., ET AL.

This argument is not an additional basis for finding Plaintiff cannot establish one or more essential elements of its negligence claim because it is not supported by any analysis and the American Entities appear to conflate the economic loss rule with the distinct legal standard for whether a legal duty exists in the first instance. (See generally Erlich, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 551; see also Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988 [explaining economic loss rule].)

  • Hearing

    May 22, 2018

DARMOHRAY V. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.

With regard to the sufficiency of the fraud claim in particular, Defendant lastly argues that the claim is barred by the economic loss rule, which provides that “where a purchaser’s expectations in a sale are frustrated because the product he brought is not working properly, his remedy is said to be in contract alone, for he has suffered only economic losses.” (Robinson Helicopter Company v. Dana Corporation (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2018

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

  « first    1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 35 36     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.