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

BOBETTE BRANTLEY VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC

Fraud Claims Nissan next demurs to the fraud claims on grounds that Plaintiffs do not plead reliance, that what Plaintiffs do plead is non-actionable, and that the non-disclosure claims fail because Plaintiffs do not plead Nissan intentionally concealed a material fact with the intent to defraud them. At the outset, the Plaintiffs style their fraud cause of action (the third cause of action) as “fraud by omission.”

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2017

JUAN MONTOYA VS INTERSPACE BATTERY INC

The plaintiffs had argued there was fraud in the inception of the contract, and that the contracts the signed were permeated with fraud. Without holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the petition to arbitrate as to all but one of the plaintiffs on grounds the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence for their allegations of fraud in the inception. The Court of Appeal reversed with directions to conduct jury trials on the claims of fraud in the inception.

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2016

TBF FINANCIAL I,LLC VS ASAP COPY PRINT

e. 3rd cause of action for fraud The elements of a claim for fraud are as follows: 1. misrepresentation; 2. knowledge of falsity (or "scienter"); 3. intent to defraud (induce reliance); 4. justifiable reliance; and, 5. resulting damage. Conroy v.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2016

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

JAMES E ELIAS VS SYNCHRONY BANK

Defendant allegedly enables fraudsters, using stolen identities, to open credit accounts through New Account Fraud and Account Takeover Fraud. [SAC, ¶3.] Defendant, in alleged derogation of statutes, regulations, common law, and fair business practices, then sells New Account Fraud, Account Takeover Fraud, and other fraudulent debt, bundled with valid debt, to debt buyers. [SAC, ¶4.]

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2016

CESAR A FAJARDO VS GLASSWERKS LA INC

In opposition, plaintiffs asserted there was fraud in the inception of the contract and that the contracts they signed were permeated with fraud. Without holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied the petition to arbitrate as to all but one of the plaintiffs on grounds that plaintiffs presented sufficient evidentiary support for their allegations of fraud in the inception of the agreement.

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2017

MESROP SHIRINYAN VS NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC

Fraud-based claims: Active concealment Nissan contends that the common law fraud claim for fraudulent omission fails because Plaintiffs allege no facts showing that Nissan knew the allegedly omitted facts at the time of the sale of the model-year Versa vehicles. To state a claim for fraud based on concealment, a plaintiff must allege: 1.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JOHN FAITRO ET AL VS TOP SURGEONS INC ET AL

The Court further found that while the attorney-client privilege attaches to the documents, there was sufficient prima facie evidence before it to apply the fraud/crime exception under Evidence Code §956. The Court also determined that while the attorney work product rule applied to the lodged documents, the protection was qualified, and not absolute.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2017

CARLA BORDENAVE ET AL VS ALLENCO ENERGY INC

CCP §338(d) provides a three-year statute of limitations in “[a]n action for relief on the ground of fraud or mistake. The cause of action in that case is not deemed to have accrued until the discovery, by the aggrieved party, of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.” As noted above, CCP §340.8(a) specifically imposes a two year statute of limitations in any civil action “for injury or illness based upon exposure to a hazardous material or toxic substance[.]”

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2016

JAIME GONZALEZ VS LUBY'S FUDDRUCKERS RESTAURANTS LLC

Plaintiff alleges claims based on fraud and false advertising. Following mediation, the parties settled the action. This Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on August 18, 2019, setting a fairness hearing for February 16, 2017. On December 14, 2016, the parties’ request to continue the fairness hearing was granted and the hearing was continued to today’s date. II.

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2017

JERRY DELGADO VS CARS 4 CAUSES

There is no apparent way that such members of the class could be readily identified and distinguished from those putative class members who did designate a third party charity (and who allege they were victims of fraud). Moreover, as further discussed infra, the Court would not be able to ascertain the class, given the individualized issues which would be required.

  • Hearing

    Oct 13, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

REBECCA SCHEUERMAN VS VITAMIN SHOPPE INDUSTRIES INC

The objection deals specifically with the supplemental questionnaire that was instituted as a result of the suspected fraud. The Court notes that it was informed by the parties of the suspected fraud in the claims process at a hearing on September 21, 2016. At the September 21, 2016 hearing, the Court approved the plan suggested by Class Counsel and the claims administrator to send out the supplemental questionnaire as there was a valid basis to believe there were numerous fraudulent claims.

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2017

IN RE THE CALIFORNIAN ON WILSHIRE CONSOLIDATED CASES

Attorney-Client Privilege and Crime-Fraud Exception Here, W/F has, in addition to invoking the mediation privilege, has invoked the attorney-client privilege with respect to responses 3 and 4. The Court need not and will not consider the crime-fraud argument, given that the mediation privilege prevents the documents from being produced.

  • Hearing

    Apr 26, 2017

RAMON VALENTIM ET AL VS TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS AMERICA INC E

Thereafter, the daughter brought an action against the wrongful death plaintiffs for a constructive trust, an accounting, apportionment, interference with prospective economic advantage, fraud, abuse of process, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted defendants' motion for a judgment on the pleadings. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2017

DAVID CHAKLOS ET AL VS ELECTRO RENT CORPORATION ET AL

“However, such an action does not extend to such matters as alleged fraud, misrepresentation, forgeries, etc., in connection with obtaining approval of the reorganization.” Cal. Practice Guide, Corporations, ¶8:363 (The Rutter Group 2017) (citing Sturgeon Petroleums Ltd. v. Merchants Petroleum Co. (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 134, 140) (emphasis supplied by Rutter Guide)).

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2017

MARY GRAY VS LOS ANGELES FEDERAL CREDIT UNION

The Complaint sets forth claims for Unfair Competition, Breach of Contract and Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Fraud, Unjust Enrichment, and Money Had and Received. Plaintiff originally filed in federal court; this action was filed in connection with the settlement.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2017

FOY & ASSOCIATES RIVERSTONE CASES

There likely will be numerous witnesses in these cases and management of substantial documentary evidence related to the underlying Riverstone federal action, and what Defendant knew about Riverstone’s alleged fraud. It is likely whether there will be a large number of separately represented parties on Plaintiff’s side. On balance, the first three factors of the CRC 3.400(b) analysis support a finding that these actions are complex for purposes of coordination. 2.

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2019

LALITA TITO ET AL VS LOTUS PROPERTY SERVICES INC ET AL

Based on these allegations and the other allegations set forth in the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege claims for failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized pay statements, waiting time penalties, fraud, conversion – theft of labor, and violation of the UCL.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MANUEL I FIGUEROA MD VS MOLINA HEALTHCARE OF CA INC

“The fraudulent business practice prong of the UCL has been understood to be distinct from common law fraud. “A [common law] fraudulent deception must be actually false, known to be false by the perpetrator and reasonably relied upon by a victim who incurs damages. None of these elements are required to state a claim for injunctive relief” under the UCL. [Citations.]

  • Hearing

    May 03, 2018

WUN-LING CHANG, M.D., INC. VS BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

“The unfair competition statute is not confined to anticompetitive business practices, but is also directed toward the public's right to protection from fraud, deceit, and unlawful conduct.” Hewlett v. Squaw Valley Ski Corp. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 499, 519-520; California Practice Guide, B&P Code §17200 Practice, ¶3:17 (The Rutter Group 2019). (1) Fraudulent business practices under the UCL “The fraudulent business practice prong of the UCL has been understood to be distinct from common law fraud.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MISBAH ETMAN VS THE GAP INC

Kwikset also observed that “a UCL fraud plaintiff must allege he or she was motivated to act or refrain from action based on the truth or falsity of a defendant’s statement, not merely on the fact it was made.” Kwikset, 51 Cal.4th at 327, fn.10 (emphasis added).

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2016

JOHN FAITRO ET AL VS TOP SURGEONS INC ET AL

A These eight individual cases involved wrongful death, identity fraud, whistleblower and medical malpractice. [Alan Robertson Decl. filed October 24, 2017, ¶4.] According to Defendants (and not disputed by Plaintiffs), the individual settlements and the class settlement were part of a global settlement, based on a mediation held before Hon. Dickran Tevrizian (Ret.). Mr.

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2018

JOHN FAITRO ET AL VS TOP SURGEONS INC ET AL

A These eight individual cases involved wrongful death, identity fraud, whistleblower and medical malpractice. [Alan Robertson Decl. filed October 24, 2017, ¶4.] According to Defendants (and not disputed by Plaintiffs), the individual settlements and the class settlement were part of a global settlement, based on a mediation held before Hon. Dickran Tevrizian (Ret.). Mr.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2018

JONATHAN REYES VS FITNESS INTERNATIONAL LLC

. §2’s saving clause include “generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability[.]” Id. at 1746. Thus, Concepcion specifically preserved state law defenses to arbitration agreements, so long as the defense did not invalidate a particular type of arbitration agreement (i.e., arbitration agreements appearing in employment contracts).

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2016

YVETTE BRANDEIS VS 24-7 CAREGIVERS REGISTRY INC ET AL

. §2’s saving clause include “generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability[.]” Id. at 1746. Thus, Concepcion specifically preserved state law defenses to arbitration agreements, so long as the defense did not invalidate a particular type of arbitration agreement (i.e., arbitration agreements appearing in employment contracts).

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2017

AMY JONES ET AL VS DR SANDHU ANIMAL HOSPITAL INC ET AL

. §2’s saving clause include “generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability[.]” Id. at 1746. Thus, Concepcion specifically preserved state law defenses to arbitration agreements, so long as the defense did not invalidate a particular type of arbitration agreement (i.e., arbitration agreements appearing in employment contracts). As such, the Armendariz factors are still applicable with respect to the unconscionability analysis, and these are discussed below. a.

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2017

1 2     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.