How To Prove A California Fraud Claim

In California, a claim of Fraud is defined as:
An intentional misrepresentation to deceive another into surrendering money or other items of value. Fraud consists of some deceitful practice or willful device, resorted to with intent to deprive another of his right, or in some manner to do him an injury. See also Intentional Misrepresentation.
It simply means:
A party intentionally deceived another party for their own benefit.
There are 5 elements of the claim:
- Element 1. The defendant made a false representation as to a past or existing material fact. The defendant lied about something important that happened in the past or is currently true, which misled someone else and influenced their decisions.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant claimed that the property had no prior water damage, despite having knowledge of significant flooding incidents in the past.
* The defendant provided a falsified inspection report indicating that the electrical system was up to code when it had not been inspected for over five years.
* The defendant assured the buyer that the business was profitable, while concealing financial statements that showed consistent losses over the previous year.
* The defendant represented that all appliances in the rental unit were in working condition, knowing that several were broken and required repairs.
* The defendant stated that the vehicle had never been in an accident, despite having a documented history of multiple collisions. - Element 2. The defendant knew the representation was false at the time it was made. This means that the person accused of fraud was aware that what they said or promised was not true when they said it, showing they intended to deceive someone for their own benefit.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant had previously made the same representation to another party, which was proven to be false.
* The defendant received internal communications indicating that the information provided was inaccurate before making the representation.
* The defendant had firsthand knowledge of the true facts that contradicted the representation at the time it was made.
* The defendant’s actions demonstrated a deliberate effort to conceal the truth from the plaintiff.
* The defendant was aware of industry standards that directly contradicted the claims made in the representation. - Element 3. In making the representation, the defendant intended to deceive the plaintiff. In a fraud claim, this means that the person accused of wrongdoing knowingly tried to trick the other person into believing something false, with the goal of causing them to act based on that deception.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant knowingly provided false information about the product’s effectiveness to persuade the plaintiff to make a purchase.
* The defendant had previously made similar misleading statements to other customers, indicating a pattern of deceitful behavior.
* The defendant stood to gain financially from the plaintiff’s reliance on the false representation, demonstrating intent to deceive.
* The defendant ignored evidence that contradicted their claims, suggesting a deliberate effort to mislead the plaintiff.
* The defendant’s internal communications revealed an awareness of the falsehoods being presented to the plaintiff. - Element 4. The plaintiff justifiably relied on the representation. The plaintiff believed the false statement made by the defendant was true and acted on it, showing that their trust in the information was reasonable and appropriate given the circumstances.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff had no prior experience in the industry and relied on the defendant’s expertise to make an informed decision.
* The defendant provided detailed documentation and assurances that the investment was low-risk, which the plaintiff accepted as truthful.
* The plaintiff conducted no independent research, trusting the defendant’s representations as the sole basis for their investment.
* The defendant’s reputation in the community led the plaintiff to believe that the information provided was reliable and accurate.
* The plaintiff explicitly stated their reliance on the defendant’s claims during discussions, indicating a clear expectation of honesty. - Element 5. The plaintiff suffered resulting damages. The plaintiff experienced negative consequences, such as financial loss or emotional distress, because of the fraudulent actions of the defendant, showing that the deceit directly harmed them in a significant way.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff incurred significant financial losses due to reliance on the defendant’s fraudulent misrepresentations.
* The plaintiff experienced emotional distress and anxiety as a direct result of the defendant’s deceptive actions.
* The plaintiff lost business opportunities that would have generated substantial revenue due to the defendant’s fraudulent conduct.
* The plaintiff had to spend considerable resources on legal fees to address the consequences of the fraud.
* The plaintiff’s credit rating was negatively impacted, leading to higher interest rates on future loans.
(See West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, 214 Cal. App. 4th 780 – Cal: Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate Dist., 3rd Div. 2013. Lazar v. Superior Court, 909 P. 2d 981, 12 Cal. 4th 631, 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 377 (Cal. Supreme Court 1996). Anderson v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, 56 Cal. App. 4th 1468 – Cal: Court of Appeal, 1st Appellate Dist., 5th Div. 1997.)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Claim of Fraud, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents that are supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge necessary to effectively navigate your Claim of Fraud.
U.S. Civil Cases Only