prerequisite to establishing claim in California

2020Savings & Loan Assn. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1089, 1095 [“The existence of a duty of care owed by a defendant to a plaintiff is a prerequisite to establishing a claim for negligence”].) Bautzer’s alleged injury involves conduct controlled by a loan agreement (the deed of trust).

2015A defendant who makes false statements ' "honestly believing that they are true, but without reasonable ground for such belief, . . . may be liable for negligent misrepresentation . . . . " [Citations.]' [Citation.] However, a positive assertion is required; an omission or an implied assertion or representation is not sufficient." (Apollo Capital Fund LLC v. Roth Capital Partners, LLC (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 226, 243 .) "The existence of a duty of care owed by a defendant to a plaintiff is a prerequisite to establishing a claim for negligence." (Nymark, supra, 231 Cal.App.3d at p. 1095 .) Wheth

2014Savings & Loan Assn. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1089, 1095 .) “[A]s a general rule, a financial institution owes no duty of care to a borrower when the institution’s involvement in the loan transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a mere lender of money.” (Id. at p. 1096.) To determine whether such a lender owes a duty of care, courts must consider the following balancing factors: “ ‘ “ ‘[1] the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff, [2] the foreseeability of harm to him, [3] the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, [4] the

2013Our conclusions 20 concerning whether Wells Fargo should be deemed to owe plaintiffs a duty of care apply equally to their cause of action for negligent misrepresentation.4 (See Eddy v. Sharp (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 858, 864 ["As is true of negligence, responsibility for negligent misrepresentation rests upon the existence of a legal duty, imposed by contract, statute or otherwise, owed by a defendant to an injured person"].) "The existence of a duty of care owed by a defendant to a plaintiff is a prerequisite to establishing a claim for negligence." (Nymark v. Heart Fed.

1991(Beauchamp v. Los Gatos Golf Course (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 20, 32 [ 77 Cal.Rptr. 914 ].) “Whether a legal duty exists in a given case is primarily a question of law.” (Wylie v. Gresch (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 412, 416 [ 236 Cal.Rptr. 552 ].) To the extent it presents solely an issue of law, the question of whether a duty exists may be resolved on a motion for summary judgment.

1991(Beauchamp v. Los Gatos Golf Course (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 20, 32 [ 77 Cal.Rptr. 914 ].) “Whether a legal duty exists in a given case is primarily a question of law.” (Wylie v. Gresch (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 412, 416 [ 236 Cal.Rptr. 552 ].) To the extent it presents solely an issue of law, the question of whether a duty exists may be resolved on a motion for summary judgment.

1991(Beauchamp v. Los Gatos Golf Course (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 20, 32 [ 77 Cal.Rptr. 914 ].) “Whether a legal duty exists in a given case is primarily a question of law.” (Wylie v. Gresch (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 412, 416 [ 236 Cal.Rptr. 552 ].) To the extent it presents solely an issue of law, the question of whether a duty exists may be resolved on a motion for summary judgment.

1991(Beauchamp v. Los Gatos Golf Course (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 20, 32 [ 77 Cal.Rptr. 914 ].) “Whether a legal duty exists in a given case is primarily a question of law.” (Wylie v. Gresch (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 412, 416 [ 236 Cal.Rptr. 552 ].) To the extent it presents solely an issue of law, the question of whether a duty exists may be resolved on a motion for summary judgment.