12 Cited authorities

Lazar v. Superior Court
12 Cal.4th 631 (Cal. 1996) Cited 1,693 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that justifiable reliance is a required element of a fraud claim
Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
2 Cal.App.4th 153 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) Cited 499 times
Holding that, when suing a corporate defendant for fraud, a plaintiff must include “the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written”
Bustamante v. Intuit Inc.
141 Cal.App.4th 199 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 291 times
Finding that the conditions for performance as to a purported contractual duty to "take all steps necessary to obtain adequate funding and to formally launch the company" were "fatally uncertain."
Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. Boyle
178 Cal.App.4th 1020 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 206 times 10 Legal Analyses
Ruling on a demurrer
Deveny v. Entropin Inc.
139 Cal.App.4th 408 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 172 times
Holding that the sham pleading doctrine did not apply because the plaintiff's explanation of newly discovered evidence was plausible and the complaint was based on numerous other allegations besides those omitted
Aguilera v. Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp.
223 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 146 times
Holding that tolling ceases once the deadline for certification passes
Granadino v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
236 Cal.App.4th 411 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) Cited 66 times
Affirming trial court's finding that lender's alleged promise to postpone foreclosure sale was unenforceable absent a signed writing
Geneva Towers Limited Partnership v. City and County of San Francisco
29 Cal.4th 769 (Cal. 2003) Cited 49 times 1 Legal Analyses
Overturning the appellate court's decision to apply the catch-all provision because another more specific limitation period was applicable
Colapinto v. County of Riverside
230 Cal.App.3d 147 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) Cited 45 times
In Colapinto v. County of Riverside (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 147 [ 281 Cal.Rptr. 191], the Court of Appeal held that Vehicle Code section 17001 did not apply when firefighters used a forklift to open a large service entry door, and the resulting influx of air allegedly fueled a small fire into a roaring blaze that destroyed the building.
Finch v. Brenda Raceway Corp.
22 Cal.App.4th 547 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) Cited 23 times
Holding that a "violation of section 970 constitutes an intentional misrepresentation"

Hearing Demurrer

12 Cited authorities

Holding that justifiable reliance is a required element of a fraud claim

Holding that, when suing a corporate defendant for fraud, a plaintiff must include “the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written”

Finding that the conditions for performance as to a purported contractual duty to "take all steps necessary to obtain adequate funding and to formally launch the company" were "fatally uncertain."

Ruling on a demurrer

Holding that the sham pleading doctrine did not apply because the plaintiff's explanation of newly discovered evidence was plausible and the complaint was based on numerous other allegations besides those omitted

Holding that tolling ceases once the deadline for certification passes

Affirming trial court's finding that lender's alleged promise to postpone foreclosure sale was unenforceable absent a signed writing

Overturning the appellate court's decision to apply the catch-all provision because another more specific limitation period was applicable

Holding that a "violation of section 970 constitutes an intentional misrepresentation"