16 Cited authorities

Lazar v. Superior Court
12 Cal.4th 631 (Cal. 1996) Cited 1,686 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that justifiable reliance is a required element of a fraud claim
Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
7 Cal.4th 1238 (Cal. 1994) Cited 683 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff's "claim of whistle-blower harassment fails because he cannot demonstrate the required nexus between his reporting of alleged statutory violations and his allegedly adverse treatment"
Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
246 Cal.App.4th 1150 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) Cited 232 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding complaint failed to adequately plead successor liability at California's demurrer stage where it did not allege that the defendant "purchased or otherwise acquired [the corporation's] principal assets"
Cansino v. Bank of America
224 Cal.App.4th 1462 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) Cited 148 times
Holding that a representation that a home would appreciate in value was a prediction about the future and thus could not support a fraud claim
Orcilla v. Big Sur, Inc.
244 Cal.App.4th 982 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) Cited 122 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding a plaintiff pleaded exceptions to the tender ruling elsewhere in the complaint
Casterson v. Superior Court
101 Cal.App.4th 177 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 102 times
In Casterson, the plaintiff asserted section 35330's immunity should not be construed to protect a district's employee for injuries caused by the employee's negligence during the field trip because subdivision (d) did not expressly cover employees, while other provisions of the Education Code limiting liability for personal injuries did expressly cover employees.
Wilhelm v. Pray, Price, Williams & Russell
186 Cal.App.3d 1324 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) Cited 157 times
Holding that "essential allegations for an action in fraud or deceit are false representation as to a material fact, knowledge of its falsity, intent to defraud, justifiable reliance and resulting damage"
Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran
179 Cal.App.4th 949 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 80 times
Holding "legislative purpose of former section 439, the predecessor of section 426.30 . . . was to provide for the settlement, in a single action, of all conflicting claims between the parties arising out of the same transaction" and to "avoid a multiplicity of actions"
Foster v. Sexton
61 Cal.App.5th 998 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) Cited 35 times
In Foster, supra, 61 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1025-026, the appellate court considered whether an inmate was excused from exhausting administrative remedies through an inmate grievance procedure because the remedies were effectively unavailable to him.
George v. Auto. Club of South. California
201 Cal.App.4th 1112 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) Cited 47 times
Applying rule, but finding no ambiguity

Order Submitted Matter

16 Cited authorities

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

Holding that plaintiff's "claim of whistle-blower harassment fails because he cannot demonstrate the required nexus between his reporting of alleged statutory violations and his allegedly adverse treatment"

Holding complaint failed to adequately plead successor liability at California's demurrer stage where it did not allege that the defendant "purchased or otherwise acquired [the corporation's] principal assets"

Holding that a representation that a home would appreciate in value was a prediction about the future and thus could not support a fraud claim

Holding a plaintiff pleaded exceptions to the tender ruling elsewhere in the complaint

Holding that "essential allegations for an action in fraud or deceit are false representation as to a material fact, knowledge of its falsity, intent to defraud, justifiable reliance and resulting damage"

Holding "legislative purpose of former section 439, the predecessor of section 426.30 . . . was to provide for the settlement, in a single action, of all conflicting claims between the parties arising out of the same transaction" and to "avoid a multiplicity of actions"

In Foster, supra, 61 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1025-026, the appellate court considered whether an inmate was excused from exhausting administrative remedies through an inmate grievance procedure because the remedies were effectively unavailable to him.

Applying rule, but finding no ambiguity