Fraud

The trial court correctly denied this lawyer-defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion, finding that this suit to collect the agreed price for its services was not based on protected speech.  The fraud and concealment claim brought against the lawyer was for misrepresentations and concealments about the client-buyer's financial condition which induced plaintiff to enter into the services contract.  Communications at the pre-contract stage… Read More

Plaintiff was the executrix as well as a beneficiary of her parents' estate. She claimed that a relative and co-beneficiary conspired with two other defendants to fraudulently induce her, as executrix, to take a large loan at usurious rates secured by the parents' house, the estate's principal asset, after which the co-beneficiary misappropriated most of the loan funds.  This decision… Read More

The Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (IFPA; Ins. Code 1871, et seq.) allows qui tam plaintiffs to file lawsuits on the government’s behalf and seek monetary penalties against perpetrators of insurance fraud.  To prevent duplicative lawsuits, the IFPA contains a “first-to-file rule” (Ins. Code 1871.7(e)(5)) that bars parties from filing subsequent actions related to an already pending lawsuit.  This decision holds… Read More

A fiduciary owes a duty to disclose material facts to the beneficiary.  The beneficiary is under no duty to investigate whether the fiduciary has told the truth or disclosed all the material facts.  Hence, when a conservatee moves to set aside an order approving the conservator's accounting on the ground of misrepresentations in the conservator's accounting and petition for approval,… Read More

Huy Fong bought peppers from Underwood to manufacture Srirache sauce.  As Huy Fong's sale grew, it repeatedly urged Underwood to increase its acreage devoted to peppers, promising that Huy Fong would buy all the peppers Underwood produced while concealing its plan to start a competing business from which it would buy all its peppers.  Substantial evidence supported the jury verdict… Read More

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