Cal. Codes » Civil Code
California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 1710 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A deceit, within the meaning of the last section, is either:

1.The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;

2.The assertion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be true;

3.The suppression of a fact, by one who is bound to disclose it, or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact; or,

4.A promise, made without any intention of performing it.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 247 cases (48 in the last 5 years), 1944–2026 · leading case: Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack, 223 Cal. App. 4th 1105 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack, 223 Cal. App. 4th 1105 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “” (Civ. Code, § 1710.) 14 Thus, under the rule of statutory construction that we apply a more specific statute, given the accounting duty applicable to the express trust that is a client trust account, we apply Probate Code section 16460 to plaintiffs’ fraud-based claims that…”
Gutierrez v. Carmax Auto Superstores Cal., 228 Cal. Rptr. 3d 699 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018). · cites it 2× “" ( Civ. Code, § 1710, subd. 3.) Fraud includes "suppression of that which is true, by one having knowledge or belief of the fact.”
Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc., 65 P.3d 1255 (Cal. 2003). · cites it 2× “) It encompasses "[t]he assertion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be true" (Civ.Code, § 1710, subd. 2), and "[t]he positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that…”
Roberts v. Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown & Baerwitz, 57 Cal. App. 3d 104 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 4× “) As to negligent misrepresentation as a form of deceit, Civil Code section 1710 provides, in pertinent part, that a deceit may be ".”
Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 221 Cal. App. 4th 49 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “Basis for Granting Leave to Amend We conclude, however, that a lender does owe a duty to a borrower to not make material misrepresentations about the status of an application for a loan modification or about the date, time, or status of a foreclosure sale.”
Hoffman v. 162 North Wolfe CA6, 228 Cal. App. 4th 1178 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “(3) [a deceit includes “[t]he suppression of a fact, by one who is bound to disclose it, or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact”]; see Judicial Council of Cal.”
Shum v. Intel Corp., 633 F.3d 1067 (Fed. Cir. 2010). · cites it 4× “For these reasons, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on Shum's breach of fiduciary duty claim. II. Fraudulent Concealment Fraudulent concealment involves the "suppression of a fact, by one who is bound to disclose it, or who gives…”
Masters v. San Bernardino Cnty. Employees Ret. Ass'n, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 937 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “”) (Civ. Code, § 1710, subd. 1); (2) negligent misrepresentation (“The assertion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be true.”
Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 498 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “Civil Code § 1750 ; (4) breach of contract; (5) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (6) fraud and deceit under Cal. Civil Code § 1710 ; and (7) unjust enrichment.”
Michael J. v. Los Angeles Cnty. Dep't of Adoptions, 201 Cal. App. 3d 859 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “” Civil Code section 1710 provides: “A deceit, within the meaning of the last section is, either: “1.”
Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 237 Cal. App. 4th 812 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “) The Commission’s power to impose monetary sanctions as a deterrent to ensure compliance with its unquestionably valid jurisdictional power cannot be overcome by PG&E’s reliance upon arguments based on supposedly analogous statutes.”
Cicone v. URS Corp., 183 Cal. App. 3d 194 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 3× “(Civ. Code, § 1710, subd. 1.) A misrepresentation of law is ordinarily not actionable in the absence of a confidential relationship or other special circumstance.”
Show all 247 citing cases →
— Cal. Civil Code § 1710(1) — 9 cases
Lubin v. Sybedon Corp., 688 F. Supp. 1425 (S.D. Cal. 1988).
Netbula, LLC v. BindView Dev. Corp., 516 F. Supp. 2d 1137 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
Campion v. Old Repub. Home Prot. Co., 272 F.R.D. 517 (S.D. Cal. 2011).
Campion v. Old Repub. Home Prot. Co., 861 F. Supp. 2d 1139 (S.D. Cal. 2012).
In re First Am. Home Buyers Prot. Corp., 313 F.R.D. 578 (S.D. Cal. 2016).
— Cal. Civil Code § 1710(2) — 10 cases
Petersen v. Allstate Indem. Co., 281 F.R.D. 413 (C.D. Cal. 2012).
Bourgois v. Montana-Dakota Utils. Co., 466 N.W.2d 813 (N.D. 1991).
Nasseri v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 147 F. Supp. 3d 937 (N.D. Cal. 2015).
Allstate Ins. v. Miller, 743 F. Supp. 723 (N.D. Cal. 1990).
Luksch v. Latham, 675 F. Supp. 1198 (N.D. Cal. 1987).
— Cal. Civil Code § 1710(3) — 16 cases
Shum v. Intel Corp., 633 F.3d 1067 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “For these reasons, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on Shum's breach of fiduciary duty claim. II. Fraudulent Concealment Fraudulent concealment involves the "suppression of a fact, by one who is bound to disclose it, or who gives…”
Willis v. Buffalo Pumps Inc., 34 F. Supp. 3d 1117 (S.D. Cal. 2014).
Lubin v. Sybedon Corp., 688 F. Supp. 1425 (S.D. Cal. 1988).
In re First Am. Home Buyers Prot. Corp., 313 F.R.D. 578 (S.D. Cal. 2016).
Campion v. Old Repub. Home Prot. Co., 861 F. Supp. 2d 1139 (S.D. Cal. 2012).
— Cal. Civil Code § 1710(4) — 4 cases
Campion v. Old Repub. Home Prot. Co., 272 F.R.D. 517 (S.D. Cal. 2011).
In re First Am. Home Buyers Prot. Corp., 313 F.R.D. 578 (S.D. Cal. 2016).
Carlson v. Clapper (N.D. Cal. 2021).
Rewardify, Inc. v. Synvest Canco, Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2022).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.