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

201-225 of 888 results

CHOI VS BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC

Moreover, the Court is unable to conclude, on this limited record, that the seventh cause of action is barred by the economic loss rule. See Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 989-90 ("Tort damages have been permitted in contract cases...where the contract was fraudulently induced."); see also Harris v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 29, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

CAITLIN BRAY VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Economic Loss Rule Defendant argues that the economic loss rule bars plaintiff’s tort claims because they are “essentially breach of warranty claims clothes as tort claims.” DEM 7:20-21. Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979 has been recognized as a seminal case concerning the economic loss rule. There, the plaintiff “argue[d] that its claims for fraud and deceit were based on an independent duty that Dana breached.” Id. at 989.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ENRIQUE VILLALOBOS VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

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. Quite simply, the economic loss rule 'prevent[s] the law of contract and the law of tort from dissolving one into the other.'" Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988 (citations omitted).

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2013

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CALIFORNIA SPINE AND NEUROSURGERY INSTITUTE DBA SAN JOSE NEUROSPINE V. BLUE

Defendant CPS generally demurs to the second cause of action on the following grounds: (1) the claim is barred by the economic loss rule; (2) the claim relates solely to future events instead of past conduct; and (3) Plaintiff has not alleged reasonable reliance as a matter of law. Economic Loss Rule Defendant CPS first argues the fraud claim is barred under the economic loss rule.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2019

TRISH L. TATUM VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

The economic loss rule does not bar fraud and intentional misrepresentation claims because they are independent of a contract claim stemming from a warranty. (Id. 991.) However, GM neglects that the economic loss rule does not apply “where the contract was fraudulently induced.” (Id. at p. 989–90.) That is what is alleged here. Accordingly, GM’s Demurrer is OVERRULED. II.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2019

RONALD BROWN VS ROBERT BLAINE, ET AL.

Nevertheless, the most widely recognized exception to the economic loss rule is when a defendant’s conduct constitutes a tort as well as a breach of contract. (Id. at 78.) When one party commits fraud during the contract formation or performance, for example, the injured party may recover in both contract and tort. (Id.) Because Plaintiff has adequately alleged fraud in the inducement, his complaint is not barred by the economic loss rule.

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JOSE FELIX GOMEZ, ET AL. VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Defendant finally demurs to the fourth cause of action for fraudulent inducement – concealment is barred by the economic loss rule. In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that the economic loss rule does not apply to this cause of action. The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ cause of action for fraudulent inducement – concealment is not barred by the economic loss rule. Tort damages are permitted in contract cases where the contract has been fraudulently induced.

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BOND 330 UNION LLC VS ALPHA CONSTRUCTION CO INC ET AL

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.] In Jimenez v.

  • Hearing

    Apr 02, 2019

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Issue No. 1: Plaintiff’s “cause of action for fraudulent inducement – concealment is barred by the economic loss rule because Plaintiff’s claimed damages are solely economic in nature.” Defendants argue that Plaintiff solely claims economic losses arising from the alleged concealment of a defect in his vehicle and therefore the economic loss rule applies.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

ELINOY SHALEV VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Economic Loss Rule Second, Defendant demurs to the fourth cause of action on the ground that the economic loss rule bars this cause of action. (Demurrer, p. 9:8.) “Economic loss consists of damages for inadequate value, costs of repair and replacement of the defective product or consequent loss of profits-without any claim of personal injury or damages to other property.

  • Hearing

    Nov 22, 2019

HECTOR CAZARES VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Economic Loss Rule: Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979 has been recognized as a seminal case concerning the economic loss rule. There, the plaintiff “argue[d] that its claims for fraud and deceit were based on an independent duty that Dana breached.” Id. at 989.

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARIN VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC

Under the facts alleged in the complaint, the economic loss rule does not apply. "As our Supreme Court has explained, 'the economic loss rule provides: ' " '[W]here 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.' " ' ...

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ANNALISA CANTEEN VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Ford also argues that the fraud cause of action is barred by the economic loss rule. (Dem. at 9-11.) “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.” (Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2016

MARIN VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC

Under the facts alleged in the complaint, the economic loss rule does not apply. "As our Supreme Court has explained, 'the economic loss rule provides: ' " '[W]here 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.' " ' ...

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

TROY WELCH , ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, ET AL.

The economic loss rule does not bar fraud and intentional misrepresentation claims because they are independent of a contract claim stemming from a warranty. (Id. 991.) And GM neglects that the economic loss rule does not apply “where the contract was fraudulently induced.” (Id. at p. 989–90.) That is what is alleged here. (FAC ¶ 99.) Accordingly, GM’s Demurrer is OVERRULED.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2020

DEREK MOSTERO VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY ET AL

Again, Ford cites to no case law holding that the CLRA is a “tort” under the economic loss rule. Were this court to adopt Ford’s construction of the economic loss rule, no party could bring a CLRA claim where a warranty existed.

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2016

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA, ET AL. V. CDM SMITH, INC.

In sustaining the prior demurrer, the Court referred specifically to the fire as a potential exception to the economic loss rule. This reference did not imply that the only potential exception was the fire. Physical damage by overtightening of flanges also is type of property damage that is outside of the economic loss rule. As discussed above, it is the economic loss rule that generally defeats a compensable tort claim as a basis for equitable indemnity as pleaded by CDM.

  • Hearing

    Mar 27, 2018

AFFELD GRIVAKES LLP VS DAVID SEYDE ET AL

FRAUD — THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Defendants next argue that AG’s fraud claim is indistinguishable from its breach of contract action, and is thus barred by the economic loss rule. (Demurrer at pp. 11–13.) “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.

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Robert S. Draper or Gail Ruderman Feuer

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FRANCISCO LEON VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Economic Loss Rule Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979 has been recognized as a seminal case concerning the economic loss rule. There, the plaintiff “argue[d] that its claims for fraud and deceit were based on an independent duty that Dana breached.” Id. at 989.

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2017

MARITZA GRAMAJO, ET AL. VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Economic Loss Rule: OVERRULED Nissan argues that the fraud claim is barred by the economic loss rule. In Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, the court held that under the economic loss rule, a purchaser may only “recover in contract for purely economic loss due to disappointed expectations, unless he can demonstrate harm above and beyond a broken contractual promise.” (Id. at p. 988.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ISEC INCORPORATED VS. STILES CUSTOM METAL INC

Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 764, 780–81) To apply the economic loss rule, the court must first determine what the product at issue is to determine whether the injury is to the product itself (for which recovery is barred by the economic loss rule) or to property other than the defective product (for which plaintiffs may recover in tort).

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

DEREK MOSTERO VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY ET AL

Again, Gosch cites to no case law holding that the CLRA is a “tort” under the economic loss rule. Were this court to adopt Gosch’s construction of the economic loss rule, no party could bring a CLRA claim where a warranty existed.

  • Hearing

    Feb 03, 2017

EDELL V. ADK LLC ET AL.,

Also sustained on grounds that the tort claims appear to be barred by the economic loss rule. (See Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979; Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, 643). Sustain with leave to amend the 4th cause of action for Fraud and Intentional Misrepresentation. Knowingly false representations on the part of moving defendants are not alleged. Even if this claim is not precluded by the economic loss rule, the fraud claim is not sufficiently alleged.

  • Hearing

    Mar 19, 2012

JAIME LOPEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC

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.] In Jimenez v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2019

JOHN MUSERO VS CREATIVE ARTISTS AGENCY, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

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. Quite simply, the economic loss rule ‘prevent[s] the law of contract and the law of tort from dissolving one into the other.” (Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988 (citations omitted).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 36     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.