The Guide is an invaluable online tool for litigation and transactional attorneys. The Guide provides for more than 70 common law causes of action:

- Each action’s elements;
- The most recent state and federal cases that cite the actions’ elements;
- The applicable statute of limitations for each action; and
- Defenses to each cause of action.
- AND, The Guide is updated annually.

FREE – No credit card or payment required. Testimonials


1 Elements and Case Citations

The elements of fraud, which give rise to the tort action for deceit, are

(1) a misrepresentation,
(2) with knowledge of its falsity,
(3) with the intent to induce another’s reliance on the misrepresentation,
(4) justifiable reliance, and
(5) resulting damage.

Conroy v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 45 Cal. 4th 1244, 1255 (2009).

The elements of a cause of action for fraudulent inducement to an employment contract are

(1) that the employer misrepresented or concealed a material fact during the hiring process,
(2) knowledge of the falsity of the fact or lack of reasonable grounds for believing it to be true,
(3) an intent to induce reliance,
(4) justifiable reliance by the employee, and
(5) resulting damages.

Garamendi v. Golden Eagle Ins. Co., 128 Cal. App. 4th 452, 470 (2005).

California Civil Code section 1572 entitled “Actual fraud defined” provides:

Actual fraud, within the meaning of this chapter, consists in any of the following acts, committed by a party to the contract, or with his connivance, with intent to deceive another party thereto, or to induce him to enter into the contract:

1. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;
2. The positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true;
3. The suppression of that which is true, by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;
4. A promise made without any intention of performing it; or,
5. Any other act fitted to deceive.

See also Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1571-1574.


Supreme Court of California: Conroy v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 45 Cal. 4th 1244, 1255 (2009).

California 1st Dist.:  AREI II Cases, 216 Cal. App. 4th 1004, 1021-22 (2013).

California 2d Dist.:  Chapman v. Skype Inc., 220 Cal. App. 4th 217, 230-31 (2013).

California 3d Dist.:  Collins v. eMachines, Inc., 202 Cal. App. 4th 249, 259 (2011).

California 4th Dist.:  Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 221 Cal. App. 4th 49, 78 (2013).

California 5th Dist.:  Glaski v. Bank of Am., 218 Cal. App. 4th 1079, 1090 (2013).

California 6th Dist.:  Moncada v. West Coast Quartz Corp., 221 Cal. App. 4th 768, 775 (2013).


United States Court of Appeal for the 9thCircuit: Doe v. Gangland Prods., 730 F.3d 946, 960 (9th Cir. 2013).

Central District: Mt. View Surgical Ctr. v. CIGNA Health Corp., No. CV 13-08083 DDP (AGRx), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173232, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2013).

Eastern District: Rios v. Bank of Am., No. 2:12-CV-02439-KJM-AC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169486, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2013).

Northern District: Samet v. P&G, No. 5:12-cv-01891-PSG, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173522,at *13 (N.D. Cal.  Dec. 10, 2013).

Southern District:  Shenzhen Tech. Co. v. Altec Lansing, LLC, No. 3:12-cv-2188-GPC-BGS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165937, at *14 (S.D. Cal. Nov.21, 2013) (“fraud by false promise”); Beaver v. Tarsadia Hotels, No. 11cv1842 GPC(KSC), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148987, at *53 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2013).

2 Defenses to Claims for Fraud

(1)   Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 431.30(b)(2) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses.  See Chapter 1 for all defenses.

(2)   Statute of Limitations: Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 338(d) (three years).

(3)   Parol Evidence:  The parol evidence rule cannot be used to bar evidence of fraud underlying a contract.  “‘[I]t was never intended that the parol evidence rule should be used as a shield to prevent the proof of fraud.’”  Riverisland Cold Storage, Inc. v. Fresno-Madera Production Credit Assn., 55 Cal. 4th 1169, 1182 (2013).

(4)   Statute of Frauds:  “[A] fraud action is not barred when the allegedly fraudulent promise is unenforceable under the statute of frauds. . . [because] the principle that a rule intended to prevent fraud, in that case the statute of frauds, should not be applied so as to facilitate fraud.”  Riverisland Cold Storage, Inc. v. Fresno-Madera Production Credit Assn., 55 Cal. 4th 1169, 1183 (2013).

(5)   Failure to Plead with Specificity: “In California, fraud must be pled specifically; general and conclusory allegations do not suffice. . . . Thus the policy of liberal construction of the pleadings . . .  will not ordinarily be invoked to sustain a pleading defective in any material respect. This particularity requirement necessitates pleading facts which ‘show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.’”  See Alfaro v. Community Hous. Imp. Sys. & Planning Ass’n, Inc., 171 Cal. App. 4th 1356, 1384 (2009) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 9(b) (requirement in Federal court to plead fraud with specificity).

(6)   In Pari Delecto: Where the parties are equally culpable, a “court will neither aid in the commission of a fraud by enforcing a contract, nor relieve one of two parties to a fraud from its consequences.  The doctrine may serve as a defense to legal as well as equitable claims, and to both tort and contract remedies.”  Jacobs v. Universal Dev. Corp., 53 Cal. App. 4th 692, 699 (1997).

(7) “Naked” Fraud Claim is Not Assignable:  “[A] person may assign a cause of action for fraud along with the person’s right to the property obtained by the fraud, but a mere naked right of action for fraud, divorced from any other property right, is not assignable.”  White Mountains Reinsurance Co. of America v. Borton Petrini, LLP, -- Cal. App. --, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 950, at *12-13 (Nov. 26, 2013).