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

1-25 of 14,067 results

A WALK IN THE PARK LLC ET AL VS BMB

Following the rule set forth in Pendergrass, the Duncan court held that the alleged promise was not within the fraud exception to the parol evidence rule. Consequently, plaintiffs’ fraud claim was barred by the parol evidence rule. Bank argues here that the loan agreement is an integrated agreement to which the parol evidence rule applies and that the promises alleged by plaintiffs fall outside of the fraud exception because of the rule expressed in Pendergrass.

  • Hearing

    May 01, 2012

SIMONE V. SIMONE FRUIT COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

Fourteenth Affirmative Defense – Parol Evidence Rule This affirmative defense merely states that “… Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the parol evidence rule.” The “parol evidence rule” bars extrinsic evidence (oral or written) of prior or contemporaneous agreements to add to or modify the terms of an unambiguous “integrated” written instrument. (Masterson v. Sine (1968) 68 Cal.2d 222, 225; Code Civ. Proc., § 1856, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2018

BANK OF THE ORIENT VS. CONSUMERINFO.COM, INC AKA EXPERIAN CONSUMER DIRECT ET AL

BASED ON THE ANALYSIS IN PACIFIC STATE BANK V GREENE, 110 CAL APP 4TH 375, THIS IS A CASE OF PROMISSORY FRAUD AND IS BARRED BY THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE. =(302/PJM/PB)

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2007

DRISCOLL & COMPANY, INC. VS. ANGELA C. DRISCOLL, TRUSTEE OF THE ELOISE M. DRISCOLL TRUST, DATED JANUARY 16, 2014

Further, Defendant has not argued the three-pronged parol evidence analysis and has not demonstrated on this pleadings motion that the oral agreement is barred by the parol evidence rule. See Gerdlund v. Electric Dispensers Int'l (1987) 190 CA3d 263, 270; Banco Do Brasil, S.A. v. Latian, Inc. (1991) 234 CA3d 973, 1001. 2. Services Rendered and Materials Supplied and Restitution claims (second through fourth causes of action) This argument was addressed at length in the Court’s 1/30/17 Order on Demurrer.

  • Hearing

    May 15, 2017

RICHARD BEST TRANSFER, INC. V. ARCHER DANIELS MIDLAND COMPANY,ET AL.

Twenty-Second Affirmative Defense – Parol Evidence Rule This affirmative defense merely states that “. . . Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the parol evidence rule.” The “parol evidence rule” bars extrinsic evidence (oral or written) of prior or contemporaneous agreements to add to or modify the terms of an unambiguous “integrated” written instrument. (Masterson v. Sine (1968) 68 Cal.2d 222, 225; Code Civ. Proc., § 1856, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CYPRESS CREEK EPC, LLC VS. CANADIAN SOLAR

The Parol Evidence Rule. The parties take inconsistent positions concerning parol evidence. Plaintiff Cypress offers parol evidence concerning the $ 150,000 bond premium, but objects to defendant Canadian’s parol evidence concerning the interpretation of the master contract’s limitation of liability clause. Defendant Canadian takes the reverse position.

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2019

JULIEN SWANSON VS. GERI LYNN GREEN ET AL

All six claims are adequately pled, neither the economic loss rule nor the parol evidence rule is a bar to any of the claims, nor does the face of the cross-complaint conclusively show that any of the claims are time-barred. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to [email protected] with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

  • Hearing

    Nov 21, 2016

PIERCE O'DONNELL VS DAWN O'DONNELL

[SAC ¶ 81] Demurrer: Dawn demurs to the SAC on the grounds that all six causes of action constitute a collateral attack on a family law order, all six causes of action are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, all six causes of action are barred by the parol evidence rule; agreements to answer for the debts of another are barred by the parol evidence rule; parties in family law proceedings cannot orally agree to a division of community property; the fourth cause of action fails because

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2015

GARY HOLT VS. VALENTINE RUTHERFORD

'When the parties to a written contract have agreed to it as an 'integration,' a complete and final embodiment of the terms of an agreement, parol evidence cannot be used to add to or vary its terms. When only part of the agreement is integrated, the same rule applies to that part, but parol evidence may be used to prove elements of the agreement not reduced to writing.

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2011

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY VS ESTRADA, SYLVIA

Nor is the declaration barred by the parol evidence rule, which provides that the terms “set forth in a writing intended by the parties as a final expression of their agreement with respect to such terms as are included therein may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior agreement or of a contemporaneous oral agreement.” (CCP § 1856(a).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge

    Elaine Lu or Yolanda Orozco

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GOLDEN PACIFIC BANK, N.A. VS. BILLFLOAT, INC. ET AL

Fresno-Madera Prod. (2013) 55 Cal.4th 1169 (parol evidence rule may not be used as a shield to prevent the proof of fraud even if the evidence shows a promise directly at a variance with the promise of the writing).) The trade secret cause of action is well-pleaded. Paragraph 57 of the complaint sufficiently identifies the alleged trade secrets. Defendants' arguments raise factual issues that are not amenable on a non-evidentiary motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2016

GOLDEN PACIFIC BANK, N.A. VS. BILLFLOAT, INC. ET AL

Fresno-Madera Prod. (2013) 55 Cal.4th 1169 (parol evidence rule may not be used as a shield to prevent the proof of fraud even if the evidence shows a promise directly at a variance with the promise of the writing).) The trade secret cause of action is well-pleaded. Paragraph 57 of the complaint sufficiently identifies the alleged trade secrets. Defendant's arguments raise factual issues that are not amenable on a non-evidentiary motion.

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2016

RODOLFO BARRIOS BENAVIDES ET AL. VS DAVID MENDEZ ET AL.

Thus, “the oral contract is barred by the Parol Evidence Rule … [and is] a complete defense to plaintiffs’ cause of action”. Motion, page 6:3-4; 7:21. Importantly, there is a fraud exception to the parol evidence rule. See, Riverisland Cold Storage, Inc. v. Fresno-Madera Production Credit Assn (2013) 55 C.4th 1169, 1171-1182. Defendants do not address the fraud exception in their motion and so, they have failed to carry their burden on the parol evidence defense argument.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2019

  • Judge

    George J. Abdallah

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

HANSEN TRUST V. TRI VALLEY ET AL.,

The trial court's resolution of an ambiguity is also a question of law if no parol evidence is admitted or if the parol evidence is not in conflict. However, where the parol evidence is in conflict, the trial court's resolution of that conflict is a question of fact and must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence.

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2011

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ROSA HERRERA VS FRANCISCO VIELMA

Vielma argues that Plaintiff’s claim for constructive trust fails because the alleged agreement to hold title to the Property and then reconvey it to Plaintiff violates the parol evidence rule and the statute of frauds. However, neither the parol evidence rule nor the statute of frauds is a bar to an action to enforce a constructive trust. (Briggs v. Nilson (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 342, 346; Lombardo v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 18, 2017

LANES END, LLC VS CLINTONBAILEY, APC

Defendants argue that Plaintiff is barred from contradicting that statement by the parol evidence rule. While the parol evidence rule may bar Plaintiff from contradicting ¶ 15 and that may pose problems at trial, it does not justify summary judgment/adjudication in Defendants’ favor at this time. First, there is no similar statement in the Deed so, at best, only part of the transaction is protected.

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2017

JONES VS. MONTAGE SYSTEMS

Moreover, even evidence of fraudulent promises that are directly at variance with the terms of an integrated writing is not barred by the parol evidence rule. (Riverisland Cold Storage, Inc. v. Fresno–Madera Production Credit Ass'n, supra, 55 Cal.4th at 1172, 1179–1182 – overruling Bank of America v. Pendergrass (1935) 4 Cal.2d 258, 263; Julius Castle Restaurant Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2017

AAA INSTITUTE VS DAVID MONTOYA ET AL

However, as discussed above re: the third cause of action, the terms of the purported “Escrow Agreement” are barred from evidence under the parol evidence rule, unless and until a reformation cause of action is sufficiently pled. No other basis for the existence of a fiduciary duty is pled. The demurrer to the ninth cause of action is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. 7. Tenth Cause of Action (Conversion).

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ZACKS & FREEDMAN, P.C. VS. DAMIEN QUINN ET AL

The Martina Quinn declaration and the statements made therein are not barred by the parol evidence rule because the "Engagement Letter" (Zacks Decl., Ex. B, p.1) is ambiguous on its face. The first paragraph of Ex. B. states in pertinent part, "This engagement letter sets forth the terms of our firm's performance of legal services on behalf of Martina Quinn ("Client"). Damien Quinn ("Payor") has agreed to pay for our fees and costs."

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2013

INTERNET NEST INC VS LIFE PLAZA CENTER LLC ET AL

“[T]rial courts err if they refuse to consider the alleged parol evidence on the ground that no parol evidence of any sort is pertinent because the particular contract in dispute is unambiguous.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2019

MAVERIDGE INTERNATIONAL BV VS B&H FLOWERS INC ET AL

Maveridge demurs to the breach of contract cause of action on three grounds. 1) To the extent it is based on the defective bulbs, it is duplicative of the implied warranty cause of action. 2) To the extent it is based on a price charged contrary to the alleged oral agreement, it is barred by the parol evidence rule as the Payment Agreement contains an integration clause. 3) To the extent it is based on Maveridge’s alleged failure to properly pursue remedies under the Payment Agreement, B&H does not say what

  • Hearing

    Apr 01, 2010

  • Judge

    Denise deBellefeuille

  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

JANE PAK VS. OLD GRINGO INC

The trial court's resolution of an ambiguity is also a question of law if no parol evidence is admitted or if the parol evidence is not in conflict. However, where the parol evidence is in conflict, the trial court's resolution of that conflict is a question of fact and must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. ( Id. at p. 1166.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

STEVEN G KLEIN VS. PROTOCOL AGENCY INC

An oral promise of an accounting for the payments regarding the settlement agreement may be barred by the parol evidence rule because the settlement agreement has an integration clause, but that requires the court to look into certain factors beyond the scope of a demurrer. However, as alleged, it isn't clear whether the oral promise was as to the settlement agreement or part of the employment agreement.

  • Hearing

    May 15, 2013

JANE PAK VS. OLD GRINGO INC

The trial court's resolution of an ambiguity is also a question of law if no parol evidence is admitted or if the parol evidence is not in conflict. However, where the parol evidence is in conflict, the trial court's resolution of that conflict is a question of fact and must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. ( Id. at p. 1166.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JANE PAK VS. OLD GRINGO INC

The trial court's resolution of an ambiguity is also a question of law if no parol evidence is admitted or if the parol evidence is not in conflict. However, where the parol evidence is in conflict, the trial court's resolution of that conflict is a question of fact and must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. ( Id. at p. 1166.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.