Source: https://trellis.law/ca/issue-type/breach-of-covenant-of-good-faith-fair-dealing-247
Timestamp: 2020-07-15 01:23:55
Document Index: 113590286

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1102', '§ 1278', '§ 510', '§ 430', '§ 430', '§430', '§ 435', '§3345']

What is a breach of covenant of good faith/fair dealing?
Elements for breach of contract:
the existence of the contract,
plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance,
defendant's breach, and
the resulting damages to the plaintiff.
(Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.)
Elements for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing:
existence of a contract between plaintiff and defendant;
plaintiff performed his contractual obligations or was excused from performing them;
the conditions requiring defendant’s performance had occurred;
the defendant unfairly interfered with the plaintiff’s right to receive the benefits of the contract; and
the plaintiff was harmed by the defendant’s conduct.
(Merced Irr. Dist. V. County of Mariposa (E.D. Cal. 2013) 941 F.Supp.2d 1237, 1280 discussing California law.) “‘[T]he implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is limited to assuring compliance with the express terms of the contract, and cannot be extended to create obligations not contemplated by the contract.’” (Ragland v. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 182, 206 citing Pasadena Live v. City of Pasadena (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1089, 1094.)
“‘The [implied] covenant of good faith and fair dealing … [is] implied by law in every contract....’” (Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1369.) The covenant is read into contracts and functions “‘as a supplement to the express contractual covenants, to prevent a contracting party from engaging in conduct which (while not technically transgressing the express covenants) frustrates the other party’s rights to the benefits of the contract.’” (Racine & Laramie, Ltd. v. Department of Parks & Recreation (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1026, 1031–1032.)
Requirements of the Covenant
The covenant also requires each party to do everything the contract presupposes the party will do to accomplish the agreement’s purposes. (Harm v. Frasher (1960) 181 Cal.App.2d 405, 417.) A breach of the implied covenant of good faith is a breach of the contract (Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1393), and “breach of a specific provision of the contract is not... necessary” to a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (Carma Developers, Inc. v. Marathon Development California, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 342, 373 & fn. 12.)
“[B]reach of a specific provision of the contract is not... necessary” to a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (Carma Developers, supra, 2 Cal.4th at 373 & fn. 12.)
“Every contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing in its performance and its enforcement.” (Hicks v. E.T. Legg & Associates (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 496, 508.) “‘The implied promise [of good faith and fair dealing] requires each contracting party to refrain from doing anything to injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement.” (Avidity Partners, LLC v. State of California (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1204.) “In essence, the covenant is implied as a supplement to the express contractual covenants, to prevent a contracting party from engaging in conduct which (while not technically transgressing the express covenants) frustrates the other party's rights to the benefits of the contract.”
“The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing does not impose substantive terms and conditions beyond those to which the parties actually agreed.”(Id.) “The covenant of good faith and fair dealing, implied by law in every contract, exists merely to prevent one contracting party from unfairly frustrating the other party’s right to receive the benefits of the agreement actually made.” (Id.) “The covenant thus cannot ‘be endowed with an existence independent of its contractual underpinnings.’” (Id.) “It cannot impose substantive duties or limits on the contracting parties beyond those incorporated in the specific terms of their agreement.” (Id.)
Useful Rulings on Breach of Covenant of Good Faith/Fair Dealing
HAHN VS. RETAIL PACIFIC INC.
HEARING ON DEMURRER TO 1st Amended COMPLAINT FILED BY RETAIL PACIFIC INC., GREGORY JULES LABARTHE * TENTATIVE RULING: * Before the Court is Defendant Retail Pacific Inc.’s Demurrer to Plaintiff Alex Hahn’s first cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. For the following reasons, the Demurrer is overruled. Factual and Procedural Background Plaintiff hired defe...
..this sum would be refundable if plaintiff gave a timely notice to terminate the agreement before expiration of the due diligence period. Id. at ¶ 12. Plaintiff had a scheduled trip to Oregon towards the end of that period. FAC at ¶¶ 13, 14. After he obtained a short extension of the deadline (Id. at ¶ 17), plaintiff instructed Labarthe to obtain another two-week extension or cancel the contract. I...
LITTLE RED STORE INC. VS ADT LLC
Defendant ADT, LLC’s Demurrer to the Complaint is ruled as follows: SUSTAINED, with 14 days leave to amend, as to causes of action for breach of covenant of food faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, breach of warranty of fitness, and rescission; OVERRULED as to the cause of action for breach of implied contract; and OVERRULED as to the request to limit Plaintiff’s recoverable damages to...
..all its obligations under the contract, but on March 1, 2017, Defendant’s security system failed and Plaintiff’s business was burglarized and damaged. (Id. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff brought this action for (1) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing and warranty of fitness, (2) rescission and restitution, and (3) breach of implied contract. On August 20, 2018, Defendant filed a Demurrer to the...
TYLER EVANS VS AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
Background On July 2, 2019, Plaintiff Tyler Evans filed the instant action against Defendant AIDS Healthcare Foundation and Does 1 through 25. On October 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The FAC asserts causes of action for: Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; Violation of Health & Safety Code § 1278.5; Violation of Business & Professions Code § 510; Sexual Orientat...
..ency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747. When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Wilson v. Transit Authority of City of Sacramento (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 716, 720-21.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian...
HEARING ON DEMURRER TO 1st Amended COMPLAINT FILED BY STROUD DEVELOPMENT * TENTATIVE RULING: * Defendant Stroud Development’s demurrer to causes of action 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 32, 35 and 38 in the First Amended Complaint is overruled. Defendant Alexander Stroud’s demurrer to causes of action 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, 26, 29, 32, 35 and 38 in the First FAC and filed a joint r...
..dure § 430.41. However, “[a]ny determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer.” (Code of Civil Procedure § 430.41(a)(4).) Therefore, while the meet and confer process was less than ideal, the Court chooses to disregard such deficiencies when ruling on this demurrer. In addition, since defendants are now represente...
Khazeni vs. Costa Del Mar, Inc.
Motion: New Trial. Moving Party Defendants Costa Del Mar, Inc., a Nevada corporation; and Tom H. Talebi and Elsie G. Talebi, individuals and co-trustees of the Talebi Family Trust dated September 25, 2007- and Tom H. Taleb and Elsie G. Talebi, as trustees of Taleb-Talebi Family Trust dated September 25, 2007, and Del Mar Center Properties. Responding Party Plaintiff Khosrow Khazeni. Ruling: Defend...
..t CAMs charges. Plaintiff put Defendants’ mindset at issue by suing for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Defendants argue that the jury could have used the documents to conclude that Defendants did not act in bad faith even though they might have been wrong about what the lease allowed. “Under the parol evidence rule, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to contradict express...
HERRERA v. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CASE NO.: VC067026 HEARING: 08/08/19 JUDGE: KRISTIN S. ESCALANTE #11 TENTATIVE ORDER Defendants INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB and AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED with leave amend in part, and OFF-CALENDAR as MOOT in part. CCP §430.10(e). To the extent the d...
..gust 6, 2019. The demurrer and motion to strike as to Defendant AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA are OFF-CALENDAR as MOOT. A Request for Dismissal without Prejudice as to Automobile Club of Southern California was entered on 05/22/19. This action involving insurance coverage was filed by Plaintiffs SUMIKO HERRERA and ANTHONY HERRERA on March 26, 2018. The relevant facts, as alleged, are as...
Recent Rulings on Breach of Covenant of Good Faith/Fair Dealing
1-25 of 5205 results
Civil - Unlimited (262)
Demurrer / Motion To Strike (249)
Motion Hearing (Civil) (148)
Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) (89)
A. James Robertson Ii (15)
Barbara A. Lane (20)
Dan Thomas Oki (92)
Daniel S. Murphy (105)
David M. Chapman (20)
David S. Cunningham (24)
David Sotelo (71)
David Worley (19)
Donna Geck (105)
Dylan Sullivan (18)
Eddie C Sturgeon (30)
Elaine Lu Or Yolanda Orozco (18)
Gail Ruderman Feuer (35)
Gerald Rosenberg (22)
Gregory Lewis (32)
Harold E. Kahn (34)
Holly J. Fujie (94)
Howard L. Halm (41)
Joan M. Lewis (33)
Joel R. Wohlfeil (58)
John P. Doyle (57)
John S. Meyer (63)
Judith F. Hayes (43)
Katherine Bacal (85)
Lori Ann Fournier (48)
Marc Marmaro (49)
Mark Snauffer (10)
Mary E. Arand (43)
Maureen A. Folan (6)
Michael P. Linfield (311)
Michelle Williams Court (28)
Patricia D. Nieto (61)
Peter A. Hernandez (17)
Ronald E. Quidachay (8)
Rafael A. Ongkeko (27)
Ralph C. Hofer (58)
Randa Trapp (24)
Randolph M. Hammock (56)
Rebecca Susan Riley (47)
Richard J. Burdge (47)
Richard Lee (15)
Robert A. Dukes (19)
Robert C. Hight (36)
Robert S. Draper (77)
Ronald L. Styn (103)
Thomas Anderle (96)
Vincent O'Neill (25)
William D. Stewart (116)
Yolanda Orozco (50)
Yolanda Orozco Or Georgina Torres Rizk (23)
Contra Costa County, CA (130)
El Dorado County, CA (47)
Los Angeles County, CA (2,475)
Orange County, CA (370)
Riverside County, CA (70)
Sacramento County, CA (79)
San Diego County, CA (789)
San Francisco County, CA (114)
Santa Barbara County, CA (389)
Santa Clara County, CA (155)
Greenfield and Clare Marin Greenfield aka Claire Marin Greenfield for (1) fraudulent transfer; (2) conspiracy; (3) action to cancel instrument; (4) breach of settlement agreement; (5) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (6) financial abuse of an elder. On January 14, 2020, the Court overruled Defendant Adam L. Greenfield’s demurrer to the complaint. On February 4, 2020, Adam L.
AVID GLOBAL VS BIOXXEL
Tort damages are permitted in contract cases such as breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in insurance contracts, wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, or where the contract was fraudulently induced. (See Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 989-990.) “In each of these cases, the duty that gives rise to tort liability is either completely independent of the contract or arises from conduct which is both intentional and intended to harm.”
“Tort damages have been permitted in contract cases where a breach of duty directly causes physical injury; for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in insurance contracts; for wrongful discharge in violation of fundamental public policy; or where the contract was fraudulently induced. In each of these cases, the duty that gives rise to tort liability is either completely independent of the contract or arises from conduct which is both intentional and intended to harm.” (Id. at 989-990.)
BRIDA LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
On September 11, 2019, Plaintiff Brida, LLC (Plaintiff) filed suit against Travelers Casualty Insurance company of America dba Travelers (Defendant) alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (3) declaratory relief. Legal Standard Motions to strike are used to reach defects or objections to pleadings that are not challengeable by demurrer, such as words, phrases, and prayers for damages. (See Code Civ Proc., §§ 435-437.)
Co. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 713, the court discussed the genuine dispute rule in the bad faith context: The law implies in every contract, including insurance policies, a covenant of good faith and fair dealing. “The implied promise requires each contracting party to refrain from doing anything to injure the right of the other to receive the agreement's benefits.
SANDPEBBLE APARTMENTS LLC VS NEVADA CAPITAL INSURANCE COMPANY; B&B PREMIER INSURANCE SOLUTIONS, INC. AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE,
Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (2nd COA) A cause of action for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires the following elements: (1) insurer obligated under policy to first or third party; (2) implied duty; (3) unreasonable breach of that duty; and (4) causation of at least economic damages. (Love v. Fire Insurance Exchange (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1151; Waters v. United Services Auto. Assn. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1063, 1070.)
Setyan for (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) fraud and intentional deceit; (4) money had and received; and (5) negligent misrepresentation. On May 22, 2013, Defendant Monika M. Setyan and Plaintiff entered into a stipulation for entry of judgment. On May 23, 2013, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff against Defendant Monika M. Setyan for $119,849.00. (05/23/13 Court Judgment).
Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (3) false promise. Moving Defendant filed a motion to strike portions of the complaint. Moving Defendant seeks to strike: (1) Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages; (2) Plaintiff’s prayer for attorney’s fees; and (3) Plaintiff’s prayer for statutory damages and injunctive relief.
Second Cause of Action: Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing Further, in every contract there is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (Sutherland v. Barclays American/Mortgage Corp. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 299, 314.) The covenant of good faith and fair dealing imposes a general duty upon each contracting party “to perform faithfully and not to deprive the other party of the benefits of the contract.” (Floystrup v.
of good faith and fair dealing otherwise to enrich itself at the expense of Plaintiff.
These allegations appear in paragraph 27 in the general allegations and paragraph 91 in the breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
.), the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and treble damages (Civ. Code, §3345(b)). B. Relevant Background and Demurrer On November 20, 2019, Plaintiff Rosenstiel attended the CMC, OSC re failure to file proof of service, and OSC re dismissal for lack of prosecution. At the hearing, Plaintiff Rosenstiel represented that Plaintiff Kenneth Adler no longer wished to pursue the action and so the Court ordered the complaint as to Kenneth Adler dismissed.
Relying on the "so long as he shall be living, competent and perform his duties" language of Section 7.2, the Committee argues that Yanda's alleged failure to comply with the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is sufficient to establish a failure to perform duties. Preliminarily, none of the authorities the Committee relies on allow for the imposition of a duty of good faith and fair dealing on a board member to a board.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 209 next last »