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.
CALIFORNIA STATE COURTS
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).
CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURTS
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).