specificity requirement in California

2024Fraud by intentional misrepresentation requires pleading of “ ‘ “(a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or ‘scienter’); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.” ’ ” (Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 167, 173 (Small).) “ ‘In California, fraud must be pled specifically; general and conclusory allegations do not suffice.’ ” (Id. at p. 184.) “The specificity requirement serves two purposes.

2024Fraud by intentional misrepresentation requires pleading of “ ‘ “(a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or ‘scienter’); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.” ’ ” (Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 167, 173 (Small).) “ ‘In California, fraud must be pled specifically; general and conclusory allegations do not suffice.’ ” (Id. at p. 184.) “The specificity requirement serves two purposes.

2024(Ibid.) “The specificity requirement means a plaintiff must allege facts showing how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were made, and, in the case of a corporate defendant, the plaintiff must allege the names of the persons who made the representations, their authority to speak on behalf of the corporation, to whom they 24 spoke, what they said or wrote, and when the representation was made.” (West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 793 .) McGill has set forth no specific allegations that Hearthstone negligently gave false information to her in

2023(Ibid.) “The specificity requirement means a plaintiff must allege facts showing how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were made, and, in the case of a corporate defendant, the plaintiff must allege the names of the persons who made the representations, their authority to speak on behalf of the corporation, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when the representation was made.” (West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 793 .) McGill has set forth no specific allegations that FPI intentionally or negligently gave false information to W

2017Co . (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153 , 158 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 861 ].) The specificity requirement serves two purposes: 'to apprise the defendant of the specific grounds for the charge and enable the court to determine whether there is any basis for the cause of action.' ( Chapman, supra , at p. 231 [ 162 Cal.Rptr.3d 864 ].)" ( Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc . (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1150 , 1166-1167, 201 Cal.Rptr.3d 390 ( Daniels ).) B.

2017Co . (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153 , 158 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 861 ].) The specificity requirement serves two purposes: 'to apprise the defendant of the specific grounds for the charge and enable the court to determine whether there is any basis for the cause of action.' ( Chapman, supra , at p. 231 [ 162 Cal.Rptr.3d 864 ].)" ( Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc . (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1150 , 1166-1167, 201 Cal.Rptr.3d 390 ( Daniels ).) B.

2014This court has long required that the information sought must be described with some specificity to ensure that the defendant’s request . . . is limited to instances of officer misconduct related to the misconduct asserted by the defendant.” (Warrick, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1021 .) The specificity requirement accordingly “excludes requests for officer information that are irrelevant to the pending charges.” (Ibid.; see also People v. Jackson (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1164, 1220 (Jackson) [where defendant alleged that his confession was coerced, trial court properly limited its Pitchess review to comp

2014“A request for information that is irrelevant to the pending charges does not satisfy the specificity requirement.” (People v. Hill, supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at p. 1096, fn. 7 ; Warrick v. Superior Court, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1021 ; People v. Hustead (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 410, 416 .) Ruddell’s requests for complaints regarding “all acts of aggressive behavior” and “any other evidence of misconduct amounting to moral turpitude” were not supported by good cause in light of their vagueness and overbreadth.

2016(Cf. Warrick, supra, 35 Cal.4th at 1027 ; People v. Hill (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1089, 1096, fn. 7 (Hill); see California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1021 (CHP).) “This specificity requirement excludes requests for officer information that are irrelevant to the pending charges. [Citation.] And it enables the trial court to identify what types of officer misconduct information, among those requested, will support the defense or defenses proposed to the pending charges.

2014“A request for information that is irrelevant to the pending charges does not satisfy the specificity requirement.” (People v. Hill, supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at p. 1096, fn. 7 ; Warrick v. Superior Court, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1021 ; People v. Hustead (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 410, 416 .) Ruddell’s requests for complaints regarding “all acts of aggressive behavior” and “any other evidence of misconduct amounting to moral turpitude” were not supported by good cause in light of their vagueness and overbreadth.

2024The first is notice to the defendant, to ‘furnish the defendant with certain definite charges which can be intelligently met.’ ” (Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 216 .) Second, “the pleading should be sufficient ‘ “to enable the court to determine whether, on the facts pleaded, there is any foundation, prima facie at least, for the charge of fraud.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 217.) “ ‘ “Thus ‘ “the policy of liberal construction of the pleadings . . . will not ordinarily be invoked to sustain a pleading defective in any material respect.” ’ [Citation.]

2024The first is notice to the defendant, to ‘furnish the defendant with certain definite charges which can be intelligently met.’ ” (Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 216 .) Second, “the pleading should be sufficient ‘ “to enable the court to determine whether, on the facts pleaded, there is any foundation, prima facie at least, for the charge of fraud.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 217.) “ ‘ “Thus ‘ “the policy of liberal construction of the pleadings . . . will not ordinarily be invoked to sustain a pleading defective in any material respect.” ’ [Citation.]

2020A statement to this effect would have drawn attention to the testimony relating to the efforts of the District’s maintenance crew and the notice to the District of the imminent danger of flood.” (Id. at pp. 698-699, italics added, fn. omitted; see also, e.g., Scala, supra, 3 Cal.3d at pp. 367-369 [examining ways in which defective statement of reasons might have been properly drafted].) By contrast, the Supreme Court’s most recent decision addressing the specificity requirement in this context, Lane v. Hughes Aircraft Co. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 405 (Lane), upheld a statement of reasons as adequate.

2020A statement to this effect would have drawn attention to the testimony relating to the efforts of the District’s maintenance crew and the notice to the District of the imminent danger of flood.” (Id. at pp. 698-699, italics added, fn. omitted; see also, e.g., Scala, supra, 3 Cal.3d at pp. 367-369 [examining ways in which defective statement of reasons might have been properly drafted].) By contrast, the Supreme Court’s most recent decision addressing the specificity requirement in this context, Lane v. Hughes Aircraft Co. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 405 (Lane), upheld a statement of reasons as adequate.

2020A statement to this effect would have drawn attention to the testimony relating to the efforts of the District’s maintenance crew and the notice to the District of the imminent danger of flood.” (Id. at pp. 698-699, italics added, fn. omitted; see also, e.g., Scala, supra, 3 Cal.3d at pp. 367-369 [examining ways in which defective statement of reasons might have been properly drafted].) By contrast, the Supreme Court’s most recent decision addressing the specificity requirement in this context, Lane v. Hughes Aircraft Co. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 405 (Lane), upheld a statement of reasons as adequate.

2020A statement to this effect would have drawn attention to the testimony relating to the efforts of the District’s maintenance crew and the notice to the District of the imminent danger of flood.” (Id. at pp. 698-699, italics added, fn. omitted; see also, e.g., Scala, supra, 3 Cal.3d at pp. 367-369 [examining ways in which defective statement of reasons might have been properly drafted].) By contrast, the Supreme Court’s most recent decision addressing the specificity requirement in this context, Lane v. Hughes Aircraft Co. (2000) 22 Cal.4th 405 (Lane), upheld a statement of reasons as adequate.

2016(Cf. Warrick, supra, 35 Cal.4th at 1027 ; People v. Hill (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1089, 1096, fn. 7 (Hill); see California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1021 (CHP).) “This specificity requirement excludes requests for officer information that are irrelevant to the pending charges. [Citation.] And it enables the trial court to identify what types of officer misconduct information, among those requested, will support the defense or defenses proposed to the pending charges.

2014“A request for information that is irrelevant to the pending charges does not satisfy the specificity requirement.” (People v. Hill, supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at p. 1096, fn. 7 ; Warrick v. Superior Court, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1021 ; People v. Hustead (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 410, 416 .) Ruddell’s requests for complaints regarding “all acts of aggressive behavior” and “any other evidence of misconduct amounting to moral turpitude” were not supported by good cause in light of their vagueness and overbreadth.

2022Elements and Pleading of Intentional and Negligent Misrepresentation “The essential elements of . . . intentional misrepresentation are (1) a misrepresentation, (2) knowledge of falsity, (3) intent to induce reliance, (4) actual and justifiable reliance, and (5) resulting damage. [Citations.] The essential elements of . . . negligent misrepresentation are the same except that it does not require knowledge of falsity but instead requires a misrepresentation of fact by a person who has no reasonable grounds for believing it to be true.” (Chapman v. Skype Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 217, 230-231

2020Elements and Pleading of Intentional and Negligent Misrepresentation “The essential elements of . . . intentional misrepresentation are (1) a misrepresentation, (2) knowledge of falsity, (3) intent to induce reliance, (4) actual and justifiable reliance, and (5) resulting damage. [Citations.] The essential elements of . . . negligent misrepresentation are the same except that it does not require knowledge of falsity but instead requires a misrepresentation of fact by a person who has no reasonable grounds for believing it to be true.” (Chapman v. Skype Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 217, 230-231

2023“In California, fraud must be pled 37 specifically; general and conclusory allegations do not suffice. [Citations.] . . . ‘This particularity requirement necessitates pleading facts which “show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.” ’ ” (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645 .) “ ‘The specificity requirement serves two purposes.

2020Law Applicable to Plaintiff’s Fraud-Related Claims “‘Every element of the cause of action for fraud must be alleged in the proper manner and the facts constituting the fraud must be alleged with sufficient specificity to allow defendant to understand fully the nature of the charge made.’” (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 73 , quoting Roberts v. Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown & 20 Baerwitz (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 104, 109 ; Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645 [“In California, fraud must be pled specifically; general and conclusory allegations do not suffice.”) This specific

2020Law Applicable to Plaintiff’s Fraud-Related Claims “‘Every element of the cause of action for fraud must be alleged in the proper manner and the facts constituting the fraud must be alleged with sufficient specificity to allow defendant to understand fully the nature of the charge made.’” (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 73 , quoting Roberts v. Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown & 20 Baerwitz (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 104, 109 ; Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645 [“In California, fraud must be pled specifically; general and conclusory allegations do not suffice.”) This specific

1983The effect of this rule is twofold: (a) General pleading of the legal conclusion of `fraud' is insufficient; the facts constituting the fraud must be alleged. (b) Every element of the cause of action for fraud must be alleged in the proper manner (i.e., factually and specifically), and the policy of liberal construction of the pleadings ... will not ordinarily be invoked to sustain a pleading defective in any material respect." (3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Pleading, § 574; see Hall v. Department of Adoptions (1975) 47 Cal. App.3d 898, 904 [ 121 Cal. Rptr. 223 ]; Roberts v. Ball, Hun

2016The prosecution retains the burden of proving that the warrantless search or seizure was reasonable under the circumstances.” (People v. Williams (1999) 20 Cal.4th 119, 130 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 275 , 973 P.2d 52 ].) Defendant presented no argument establishing why the prosecution’s justification for the warrantless swabs was inadequate.

2016The prosecution retains the burden of proving that the warrantless search or seizure was reasonable under the circumstances.” (People v. Williams (1999) 20 Cal.4th 119, 130 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 275 , 973 P.2d 52 ].) Defendant presented no argument establishing why the prosecution’s justification for the warrantless swabs was inadequate.

2013(See, e.g., Grannis v. Board of Medical Examiners (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 551, 565 [“[t]he principal reason for the specificity requirement is to adequately apprise the custodian of what records are desired and the requested identification may be defeated by generality of description”]; Flora Crane Service, Inc. v. Superior Court (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 767, 785-786 .) Contrary to the language of Code of Civil Procedure section 1987, Marino‟s notice to appear did not specify “exact” materials to be brought to trial.

1971The principal reason for the specificity requirement is to adequately apprise the custodian of what records are desired and the requested identification may be defeated by generality of description (Flora Crane Service, Inc. v. Superior Court, 234 Cal.App.2d 767, 786-787 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 79 ]).

2009(MacLeod v. Tribune Publishing Co. (1959) 52 Cal.2d 536, 554 [ 343 P.2d 36 ].)” (Kapellas v. Koftnan, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 31 .) As can be noted, the cited language in Kapellas refers to the specificity requirement in Civil Code section 48a, subdivision 1.

2009(MacLeod v. Tribune Publishing Co. (1959) 52 Cal.2d 536, 554 [ 343 P.2d 36 ].)” (Kapellas v. Koftnan, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 31 .) As can be noted, the cited language in Kapellas refers to the specificity requirement in Civil Code section 48a, subdivision 1.

2023(Id. at pp.977- 978.) The requirement for a detailed recitation “may be satisfied by incorporating by reference ‘papers setting forth the conduct, circumstances, and legal arguments underlying the court’s conclusions.’ ” (Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights, supra, at p. 1388 .) Because section 177.5 requires the order to be in writing, “A trial judge’s on-the-record oral recitation of reasons for imposing sanctions is insufficient.” (Childs v. PaineWebber Incorporated (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 982, 996 ; see also People v. Hundal (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 965, 970 [imposing sanctions “orally f