§Why CasetextPricing

Sachidanand Sinha vs. U.S. Bank National association

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

62 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Mycogen Corporation v. Monsanto Company

    28 Cal.4th 888 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 830 times
    Holding that a judgment granting declaratory relief and decreeing specific performance barred, under claim preclusion, a subsequent suit for damages

  3. Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

    48 Cal.4th 788 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 562 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that for res judicata purposes, "a dismissal with prejudice is the equivalent of a final judgment on the merits, barring the entire cause of action"

  4. Rosenthal v. Great W. Fin. Secs. Corp.

    14 Cal.4th 394 (Cal. 1996)   Cited 802 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding fraud in the inducement "occurs when the promisor knows what he is signing but his consent is induced by fraud"

  5. Mabry v. Superior Court

    185 Cal.App.4th 208 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 494 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a lender's noncompliance with section 2923.5 does not affect the title to the foreclosed property following a foreclosure sale

  6. Crowley v. Katleman

    8 Cal.4th 666 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 608 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a suit for malicious prosecution lies for bringing an action charging multiple grounds of liability when some but not all of those grounds were asserted with malice and without probable cause"

  7. Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

    2 Cal.App.4th 153 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 498 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”

  8. Moeller v. Lien

    25 Cal.App.4th 822 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 421 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[t]he comprehensive statutory framework established to govern nonjudicial foreclosure sales is intended to be exhaustive"; declining to "incorporate" provision not set forth in statutory framework's "myriad" rules

  9. Robi v. Five Platters, Inc.

    838 F.2d 318 (9th Cir. 1988)   Cited 440 times
    Holding that a court has no obligation to raise preclusion on its own

  10. Rockridge Trust v. Wells Fargo, N.A.

    985 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2013)   Cited 202 times
    Holding that "[t]he denial of modification" where plaintiff "was in default on his mortgage at the time" "is not an adverse action"

  11. Section 3301 - Person entitled to enforce instrument

    Cal. Com. Code § 3301   Cited 136 times

    "Person entitled to enforce" an instrument means (a) the holder of the instrument, (b) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or (c) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to Section 3309 or subdivision (d) of Section 3418. A person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument. Ca. Com. Code § 3301