Source: https://trellis.law/ca/issue-type/puffing-in-negotiations-465
Timestamp: 2020-07-10 21:57:21
Document Index: 337063122

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 6068', '§ 6106', '§ 6068', '§ 6128', '§ 430', '§ 17200', '§6068', '§2031', '§ 7', '§ 6106', '§6068', '§ 3', '§ 6068', '§6128', '§6106', '§ 6106', '§6106', '§ 6068', '§ 790']

What is Puffing in Negotiations?
(Based on The State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct Formal Opinion No. 2015-194.)
Although attorneys must advocate zealously for their clients (Davis v. State Bar (1983) 33 Cal.3d 231, 238 [188 Cal.Rptr. 441]), there are limits to an attorney’s conduct, as set forth in the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Business and Professions Code. (Hawk v. Super. Ct. (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 108, 126 [116 Cal.Rptr. 713].) Attorneys must “maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers,” and cannot “seek to mislead... by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.” (Bus. and Prof. Code, § 6068(b).)
“A member of the bar should not under any circumstances attempt to deceive another. ‘An attorney's practice of deceit involves moral turpitude.’” (Segretti v. State Bar (1976) 15 Cal.3d 878, 888 [126 Cal.Rptr. 793].) An attorney who commits any act of moral turpitude or dishonesty, whether or not in the course of the attorney’s conduct as an attorney, is subject to disbarment or suspension. (Bus. and Prof. Code, § 6106; Coviello v. State Bar (1955) 45 Cal.2d 57, 66 [286 P.2d 357].)
“[A] lawyer communicating on behalf of a client with a nonclient may not knowingly make a false statement of material fact to the nonclient, and may be liable to a nonclient for fraudulent statements made during business negotiations.” (Vega v. Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 282, 291 [17 Cal.Rptr.3d 26].) Section 6068 of the Business and Professions Code requires, among other things, that an attorney “employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him or her those means only as are consistent with truth.” (Bus. and Prof. Code, § 6068(d).) Any representation alleged to have been false must be an affirmation of fact as opposed to an opinion. (Cohen v. S&S Construction Co. (1983) 151 Cal.App.3d 941, 946.) Puffing or sales talk is generally considered opinion. (Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 112.)
The determination of whether an alleged misrepresentation “is a statement of fact” or is instead “mere puffery” is a legal question that may be resolved on motion. (Cook, Perkiss, and Leihe, Inc. v. Northern California Collection Service, Inc. (9th Cir. 1990) 911 F.2d 242, 245.) In general, mis-descriptions of a product that are very specific in nature, such as the number of channels available on a satellite television product, may be actionable, whereas generalized and vague statements concerning a product’s quality or superiority, such as the system provides “crystal clear digital” video, are considered non-actionable “puffery” upon which a reasonable consumer would not rely. (Consumer Advocates v. Echostar Satellite Corporation (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1361; Newcal Industries, Inc. v. Ikon Office Solution (9th Cir. 2008) 513 F.3d 1038, 1053.)
In other words, “[a] statement is considered puffery if the claim is extremely unlikely to induce consumer reliance. Ultimately, the difference between a statement of fact and mere puffery rests in the specificity or generality of the claim.” (Bank of America Corp v. Super. Ct. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 862, 870.) “[A] statement that is quantifiable, that makes a claim as to the ‘specific or absolute characteristics of a product,’ may be an actionable statement of fact while a general, subjective claim about a product is non-actionable puffery.” (Demetriades v. Yelp, Inc. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 294, 311.)
“A fraud claim against a lawyer is no different from a fraud claim against anyone else.” (Vega v. Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 282, 291 [17 Cal.Rptr.3d 26]; Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 346 [134 Cal.Rptr. 375]; Cicone v. URS Corp. (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 194, 202 [227 Cal.Rptr. 887].) “Every attorney is guilty of a misdemeanor who... [i]s guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party.” (Bus. and Prof. Code, § 6128(a).)
For purposes of imposing discipline, an attorney’s representations may be characterized as “moral turpitude,” “dishonesty” or “corruption” under Business and Professions Code section 6106 only if the representations were made with an intent to mislead. (Wallis v. State Bar (1942) 21 Cal.2d 322, 328 [131 P.2d 531].) Acts of moral turpitude, which are prohibited by Business and Professions Code section 6106, “include concealment as well as affirmative misrepresentations.... ‘[N]o distinction can... be drawn among concealment, half-truth, and false statement of fact.’” (In the Matter of Loftus (Review Dept. 2007) 5 Cal.State Bar Ct. Rptr. 80, 86.)
Useful Rulings on Puffing in Negotiations
City of South Pasadena vs Metropolitan Transit Authority
Nature of Proceedings: Motion Order Vacating Jdgmnt/New Trial/Transfer to LA Co; Vacate Jdgmnt/Ch.Venue for New Trial City of South Pasadena’s motion to vacate judgment and change venue for new trial.City of La Cañada Flintridge’s motion for order vacating judgment and/or for a new trial, and order for transfer to Los Angeles CountyRULINGSBoth motions are denied.SUMMARY OF THE SOUTH PASADENA MOTIO...
..having a fair trial, accident or surprise, which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against, and newly discovered evidence, material for the party making the application, which he could not with reasonable diligence have discovered an...
Pan Partnership vs Las Virgenes Investments
The Court intends to Grant plaintiff's request for judicial notice. The Court admonishes defense counsel for failing to comply with CCP § 430.41. The Court strongly admonishes both attorneys for their blatant and inexcusable miscitations of case authority.The Court intends to SUSTAIN without leave to amend Las Virgenes' demurrer to the seventh and eighth causes of action. Las Virgenes Investment's...
..(1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.Plaintiff supports its opposition with a request for judicial notice of two documents in the file. The Court intends to Grant the request for judicial notice. It also supports its opposition with a declaration from its attorney attempting to introduc...
Drociak v. State Bar
52 Cal. 3d 1085 (1991) 804 P.2d 711 278 Cal. Rptr. 86 JOSEPH L. DROCIAK, Petitioner, v. THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent. Docket No. S014385. Supreme Court of California. February 21, 1991. COUNSEL David A. Clare for Petitioner. Diane C. Yu and Starr Babcock for Respondent. OPINION THE COURT. The Review Department of the State Bar Court recommends petitioner Joseph L. Drociak b...
..and Rules of Professional Conduct, former rule 7-105(1) (same) (presently rule 5-200(B) under new Rules of Professional Conduct that became effective May 27, 1989) (all future section and rule references are to these respective sources unless otherwise indicated). The sole issue in the present proceeding is whether the recommended discipline is excessive. We adopt the recommendation of the review...
Helen Theresa Givens v. Roy Anthony Givens, et al.
I. Background Plaintiff Helen Givens (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against her former husband, Roy Givens (“Husband”) and several other defendants for damages associated with domestic violence and financial abuse. According to the allegations of the third amended complaint (“TAC”), and relevant here, defendant Banner Bank (“Banner”) is a Washington state chartered bank headquartered in Walla...
..f was unaware of their existence. (Id. at ¶¶ 179, 182.) The terms of the loan were subsequently modified two times in 2013 and 2015, but Plaintiff did not sign the documents. (Id. at ¶¶184, 186.) Banner sold the loans to Bank of New York, who hired Sellpoint, a mortgage servicer, to foreclose on the loan. (TAC, ¶ 187.) At the time of the foreclosure, Plaintiff was in discussions to modify the loa...
ROXANE E SMITH ET AL VS CINDY YONG CHI
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT ROXANE E. SMITH, ET AL., Plaintiff(s), vs. CINDY Y. CHI, ET AL., Defendant(s). CASE NO: BC703634 [TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Dept. 3 1:30 p.m. July 11, 2019 Background Facts Plaintiffs, Roxane and David Smith filed this action against Defendants, Cindy Chi and Bank of Hope for dam...
..f the accident. They contend the evidence is not complete, as it jumps around in time and does not depict key images of the parties’ accident. Law Governing Spoliation of Evidence The intentional spoliation of evidence by a party to the litigation to which it is relevant is an unqualified wrong. (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 17.) Although separate tort cause...
DEBRA E LASICH VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY ET AL
DEBRA E. LASICH, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Case No.: BC625034 Hearing Date: October 21, 2016 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: (1) DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT (2) MOTION TO STRIKE PUNITIVE DAMAGES FROM COMPLAINT BACKGROUND This is a “lemon-law” action arising out of the purchase of a vehicle sold by Defendants. Plaintiff Debra E. Lasich (“Plaintiff”) brings this...
..of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. DISCUSSION A. Demurrer A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations. (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.) The court must treat as true all of the complaint's material factual allegations, but no...
Recent Rulings on Puffing in Negotiations
Such a response violates an attorney's ethical duty under Bus & Prof Code §6068(d) to act truthfully and, therefore, constitutes bad faith. See Bihun v. AT&T Info. Sys. (1993) 13 CA4th 976, 991. Defendant to provide a verified response and produce documents no later than March 27, 2020. Response to be in compliance with C.C.P. §§2031.210-240.
Conduct, rule 5-200(B)-(D).) Similarly, the Judges of the Santa Clara County Superior Court have adopted by standing order the Santa Clara County Bar Association’s Code of Professionalism. As a result, the Court expects attorneys to comport themselves in accordance with the guidelines of professionalism set forth therein including: “written materials submitted to the court should always be factual...” (SCCBA Code of Professionalism, § 7.) Footnote 2:
Code §§ 6106, 6077; Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 5-220 [member shall not suppress evidence member has legal obligation to reveal or produce].) There are also criminal penalties for spoliation provided in Penal Code section 135, applicable to the willful destruction or concealment of anything that is part of the investigation in litigation. (Cedars-Sinai, supra, at p. 13.)
ADJUNCT FACULTY UNITED, LOCAL 6106, CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AMERICAN FEDERATION TEACHERS, AFL-CIO V. NORTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
No tentative ruling....
LERMA VS R.E. STAITE ENGINEERING, INC
(See, B&P Code §6068(d)) Defendant claims that plaintiff's claims are barred by the workers' compensation exclusivity rule and that plaintiff received workers' compensation benefits through his employer DLF Construction, Inc., who loaned plaintiff to defendant. Thus, under the doctrine of special employee/borrowed servant, plaintiff cannot seek recovery from defendant. Both federal and California law recognize the doctrine. (McCollum v. Smith (9th Cir. 1964) 339 F.2d. 348, 351; Cruz v.
Skvarna’s declaration, would constitute a violation of California Business and Professions Code sections 6106 and 6068(d) and California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 3.3, 3.4, and 8.4. (Id. at pp. 8:21-9:5.) Plaintiff contends that even if Defendants’ counsel lacked the intent to deceive the Court or Plaintiff, Defendants’ counsel created a “false impression that Dr. Skvarna had provided the information in the declaration under penalty of perjury and signed it.” (Id. at p. 9:6-9.)
ALTA VISTA SOLUTIONS VS. STATE
For instance, even though Government Code section 4528 states how a state agency head negotiates a contract after awarding a section 4525 contract, a provision was adopted on the same subject when the Public Contract Code was adopted in 1990, section 6106, and an explicit cross-reference to that section was added to the Government Code at the same time.
ALTA VISTA SOLUTIONS VS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In discussing this question, in addition to whatever they find themselves, the parties should consider the applicability and significance of the following provisions: Public Contract Code sections 100, and particularly 100 (d), 6106, 10300 and the legislative history for section 10300 found at Stats 1995 ch 932 § 3 (SB 910), including the Legislative findings and declarations, and 10335 (a); Government Code sections 4526 (requirement to adopt procedures by regulation to ensure services are engaged based on demonstrated
Code § 6068(d). The Court specifically informed plaintiff's counsel that plaintiff's Notice of Ruling as to the 11/2/18 hearing was inaccurate. ROA # 27. The Court further made clear that to the extent plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleading relied entirely on the ruling on the requests for admission, it would not be granted. Id. The Court expects to hear from plaintiff's counsel as to why its continued misrepresentation should not be reported to the State Bar.
NETWORK THERAPIES, INC. VS. MMS
If it was the latter, the attorney may have violated the candor provisions of Business and Professions Code section 6068 (d) and the then-operative Rule of Professional Conduct 5-200. An order correcting the Judgment is warranted on the authority cited above and also under the principles that would apply to an argument, either in this case or in a separate suit in equity, that the Judgment is void because it awarded more than was requested in the complaint.
ALEXANDER J PECEL VS. STEVEN B CHROMAN
He asserts causes of action for: 1) intentional tort (Breach of Fiduciary Duty/Breach B&P 6091, 6106, 6211, CRPC 4-100/Violations of State Bar Accounting Rules, Acts of Moral Turpitude); 2) intentional tort (Extortion – Civil – California Penal Code 518, 519 and CRPC 5-100); 3) intentional tort (IIED); and 4) general negligence. The gist of plaintiff's complaint is that defendant took possession of $248,566.42 in plaintiff's divorce proceeding.
SHARON SALDAVIA VS. MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES, INC. ET AL
The Pro Tem Judge has issued the following tentative ruling: The PARTIES are ORDERED to APPEAR to address Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests For Production, Set One and the issue of whether there were misrepresentations to the court (Business and Professions Code section 6068 (d)).
CONSUMER OPINION VS. ZCS
Code §6128(a), which makes it illegal for an attorney to engage in “deceit or collusion” with the “with intent to deceive the court or any party”. But, defendants do not concede that their conduct was illegal. Nor do defendants admit to plaintiff’s characterization of the facts. Thus, although plaintiff’s evidence is suggestive of illegal activity, it does not show that the defendants’ conduct was illegal as a matter of law.
INVESTMENT SERVICES V DEVKOM INTERNATIONAL LLC VS. PACIFICWAVE PARTNERS LIMITED
Plaintiff includes a cause of action for "Breach of Business and Professions Code §6106" in its complaint. Business and Professions Code section 6106 concerns acts that constitute cause for disbarment. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6106.) "Breach of Business and Professions Code §6106" is not a cause of action. The demurrer as to the seventh cause of action is SUSTAINED. The Eighth Cause of Action for Legal Malpractice As discussed above, Plaintiffs allegations do not state a cause of action under Lucas.
MICHAEL S. LITTLE V. EDWARD G. MANNION, ET AL.
Code §§ 6068, 6106 and 6128(a), a crime; and insurer of Ins. Code § 790.03(h)(l), e.g., fraud as to ‘proof of claim.’ “4) Defendant failed to: i) sue insurer for blockbuster punitive damages ….; ii) claim corporate indemnity from plaintiff/parent company for $336,500 damages and iii) advise of defense attorney malpractice by not claiming indemnity and notifying D&O insurer immediately.
POSHAN LEE VS. MICHAEL KIN WING CHUI ET AL
”, that James Li has made false statements in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(d), and that James Li has repeatedly disobeyed Court orders (see request for judicial notice, exhibit 9).
Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5-200(B). Moving on to the merits of the motion, the seventh cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations is directed against Claudia Jo Jones, Dene Molina, United Associated Brokers, dba Ace Realty, Andy Zepeda, and Jose Cabrera. It alleges that plaintiff entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Las Virgenes Investments on 12/10/14. (FAC, ¶ 52). Defendants were aware of this contractual relationship. (FAC, ¶ 53).