Fraud

The nature of the right sued upon and not the form of action nor the relief demanded determines the applicability of the statute of limitations.  So, in this case where plaintiff alleged that the seller's disclosures regarding real property sold to plaintiff were inaccurate or incomplete, the action was governed by the 3-year limitations period for fraud even though the… Read More

To invoke the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance under Basic, Inc. v. Levinson (1988) 108 S.Ct. 978, the plaintiff must  prove: (1) that the alleged misrepresentation was publicly known; (2) that it was material; (3) that the stock traded in an efficient market; and (4) that the plaintiff traded the stock between the time the misrepresentation was made and when the… Read More

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA), which subjects to criminal liability anyone who “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access.” 18 U. S. C. §1030(a)(2). " Exceeds authorized access” is defined to mean “to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the… Read More

The trial court did not err in awarding attorney fees to defendant noteholder when it prevailed against plaintiff borrower's negligence and fraud claims that were aimed at preventing enforcement of the note and deed of trust through nonjudicial foreclosure.  Even though the plaintiff pursued tort theories, the gist of the action was to prevent enforcement of the note and deed… Read More

Negligent misrepresentation differs from intentional misrepresentation on at least two elements.  For fraud, the defendant must know the representation is false; whereas, for negligent misrepresentation, lack of a reasonable basis to believe the representation is true will suffice.  Also, for negligent misrepresentation, no showing of intent to deceive is required, just an intent to induce reliance on the misstated fact. … Read More

Under the Uniform Voidable Transfer Act, a "transfer" made with actual intent to defraud creditors is voidable.  This decision holds that the statutory term "transfer" does not impose any requirement that property be transferred from a debtor to a third party.  Instead, a transfer from the debtor to himself can qualify as a voidable "transfer" for purposes of the UVTA… Read More

This decision finds that plaintiff stated a viable claim for fraudulent transfer of properties from Shahen Minassian to his wife Alice via a fraudulent marital dissolution degree with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors, including plaintiffs who secured a $100 million judgment against Shahen in underlying litigation.  The complaint alleged badges of actual intent to defraud:  transfer to… Read More

Plaintiff sued a corporation, took its default on a breach of contract claim.  Plaintiff also sued the corporation's owner and a related corporation.  After voluntarily dismissing the contract cause of action against those defendants, plaintiff continued to pursue tort claims against them for fraudulent conveyance and conspiracy, attempting to hold them liable on the default judgment against the corporation.  The… Read More

To admit her disabled, ill brother, for whom she acted as conservator, to a skilled nursing facility, plaintiff signed an admission agreement as well as two arbitration agreements, one for medical malpractice disputes, the other for all other disputes.  Plaintiff sued after the facility's poor care led to her brother's death.  The trial court denied the facility's motion to compel… Read More

Plaintiff's False Claims Act complaint alleged that all the defendant health insurers submitted false claims using false diagnoses of patients' medical condition from the same vendor, and no further differentiation among the health insurers was needed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) since they all acted the same way. Read More