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

T-12 THREE, LLC VS. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

At a minimum, Turner was required but failed to show why a “special relationship” would not exist under the circumstances between Turner and HRG as successor to the owner providing an exception to the economic loss rule. (J'Aire Corp. v. Gregory (1979) 24 Cal.3d 799.) 5. T-12 The motion is moot as to the Third Cause of Action by T-12 for indemnity.

  • Hearing

    Apr 25, 2026

FLAG & SYMBOL, LLC. VS VALUE PRICE, LLC.

Defendants claim that these fraud-based causes of action fail because they are (1) barred by the economic loss rule and (2) not plead with specificity.[3] 1. Economic Loss Rule 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.” (Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JUAN ARREGUIN, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Re: Economic Loss Rule. Defendant’s argument that the fraud claim is barred by the economic loss rule is not persuasive.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JOHN GREENE, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, ET AL.

Economic Loss Rule Defendant argues that the economic loss rule precludes tort damages. (Demurrer at pp. 13-15.) Under the economic loss rule, “[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.” (Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988, quotation marks omitted.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Judge

    Laura A. Seigle or Elizabeth Allen White

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DONALD C. DRAGUS, ET AL. VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, ET AL.

Economic Loss Rule Defendant argues that the economic loss rule precludes tort damages. (Demurrer at pp. 12-15.) Under the economic loss rule, “[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.” (Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988, quotation marks omitted.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

  • Judge

    Laura A. Seigle or Elizabeth Allen White

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

REYNALDA VALDEZ OBESO, ET AL. VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT/CONCEALMENT – FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Nissan argues that that the fraud claim is (1) inadequately pleaded and (2) barred by the economic loss rule. (Motion at p. 6.) “The elements of fraud, which give rise to the tort action for deceit, 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.” (Lazar v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

(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

MARIA DEL CARMEN VALDOVINOS ROSALES, ET AL. VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Economic Loss Rule Defendant also contends that Plaintiffs’ fourth and fifth causes of action are barred by the economic loss rule. “[T]he 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.” (Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988 (Robinson), citation marks omitted.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BEE SWEET CITRUS, INC. V. STYLE-LINE CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL.

The economic loss rule would seem to bar a claim for tort damages in this case. And then there is the issue of timeliness of the amendment, and prejudice to Kingspan. “[E]ven if a good amendment is proposed in proper form, unwarranted delay in presenting it may – of itself – be a valid reason for denial.” (Huff v. Wilkins (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 732, 746.) Denial is appropriate where the proposed amendment is “offered after long unexplained delay” or “where there is a lack of diligence.” (Melican v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

GAVIN G. GRAZER VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, ET AL.

Defendant finally demurs to seventh cause of action arguing that it is barred by the economic loss rule. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s cause of action for fraud by omission is not barred by the economic loss rule. Tort damages are permitted in contract cases where the contract has been fraudulently induced.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ELIAS SHOKRIAN VS O GARA COACH COMPANY, LLC

First Cause of Action: Negligence Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s negligence claim is also barred by the economic loss rule because the only damages alleged and identified are economic in nature. (Demurrer, p. 1:2-3; Demurrer MPA, p. 3:2-3, 3:15-18.) The economic loss rule also applies to negligence actions. (Robinson Helicopter, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 989.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

RANGEL VS. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

Absent such damages, plaintiff’s claim for fraudulent omission is barred by the economic loss rule. (Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988 [plaintiff is required to “demonstrate harm above and beyond a broken contractual promise,” in order to recover tort damages].) Plaintiff has not shown how the economic loss rule defect can be cured by amendment, as is his burden. (Medina v. Safe-Guard Products (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 105, 112, fn. 8; Heritage Pacific Financial, LLC v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

MATTHEW D CINQUANTA VS VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA INC ET AL

The determination of whether the economic loss rule applies to plaintiffs' fraud cause of action depends on whether the California Supreme Court intended in Robinson to obviate the application of the economic loss rule to all intentional affirmative fraud causes of action where the fraud exposes the plaintiff to liability or the court intended to provide a narrow exception to the economic loss rule that applies only where that fraud cause of action also accompanies, but is independent of, a breach of contract

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

BERT GONZALES, ET AL. VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

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 in contract alone, for he has suffered only ‘economic losses’” (Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

DARYL WHITE VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Given that Plaintiff has pled facts sufficient to state causes of action for fraudulent inducement – concealment and fraudulent inducement – intentional misrepresentation and has alleged that had he known of the defects “they would not have purchased the Subject Vehicle,” the economic loss rule does not apply. Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer based on the economic loss rule is OVERRULED. II.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

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

GOMEZ VS. NOMAN

Defendant FCA US LLC (“Defendant”) demurs to the Seventh Cause of Action for Fraud by Omission in Plaintiff Amadita Gomez’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on the ground that it is barred by the economic loss rule. Defendant also moves to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages in the FAC. Demurrer On 11/07/19, Defendant’s Demurrer to the Seventh Cause of Action for Fraud by Omission in the Complaint was sustained with leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

DONALD J. BIENVENU, SR. VS FCA US LLC, ET AL.

Economic Loss Rule Defendants also contend that Plaintiff’s third cause of action is barred by the economic loss rule. “[T]he 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.” (Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988 (Robinson), citation marks omitted.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

VALERIE RODRIGUEZ VS FCA US LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

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 in contract alone, for he has suffered only ‘economic losses’” (Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JUNG VS. CSP CONTRACT SERVICE, LLC

“We hold the economic loss rule does not bar Robinson's fraud and intentional misrepresentation claims because they were independent of Dana's breach of contract.” (Id.). Fraud in the inducement of the formation of a contract, as alleged in the FAC, is separately actionable. The demurrer to the second cause of action is sustained without leave to amend. Restitution is a remedy, not a cause of action. (See Melchoir v. New Line Productions, Inc. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 779, 793).

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2020

ILDIKO DIHEN V. VOLVO USA, LLC ET AL.

With respect to Defendants’ final argument for this cause of action, the economic loss rule provides that “where a purchaser’s expectations in a sale are frustrated because the product he brought is not working properly, his [or her] remedy is said to be in contract alone, for he [or she] has suffered only economic losses.” (Robinson Helicopter Company v. Dana Corporation (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988 (“Robinson”).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2020

AUCK VS ALLEN OLDSMOBILE CADILLAC, INC.

Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988-989 (also noting prior application of economic loss rule to negligence cause of action).) As a general rule, a defendant’s failure to perform under a contract does not give rise to a fraud cause of action. This is both because of the economic loss rule and the recognition that contract and tort law are and should remain separate areas of law. (Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 514-516; Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2020

MONDRAGON V. KIA MOTORS AMERICA

And the FAC still fails to allege “harm above and beyond a broken contractual promise,” which bars it under the economic loss rule. (See Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988.) Motion to strike Defendant’s motion to strike is granted as to punitive damages and Hyundai vehicles (see FAC at p. 7:5-8, 10 and otherwise denied. Punitive damages are still not available for Song-Beverly claims. (See 12/2/19 minute order.) No viable tort claim supports punitive damages.

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2020

MELINDA LEBLANC VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC, ET AL.

In other words, “[t]he 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

    Mar 13, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

CAPITAL CARE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL. VS EILEEN CHAN, ET AL.

Economic Loss Rule The economic loss rule posits that a purchaser of a product that does not live up to the buyer’s expectations can only recover in contract and not tort, “unless [the purchaser] can demonstrate harm above and beyond a broken contractual promise.” (Food Safety Net Services v. Eco Safe Systems USA, Inc. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1118, 1130 (quoting Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. v. Dana Corporation (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988).)

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.