Sedewick

Sedewick v. Bank of America CA4/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 6, 2013G047001California2,134 words

Opinion

Opinion

Thompson, J.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

According to the respondents‟ brief, in a 93-page complaint plaintiffs sued defendants, among others, for fraudulent concealment, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, invasion of privacy, violation of the California Financial Information Privacy Act (Fin. Code, § 4050 et seq.) and Civil Code section 1798.82, unfair competition, rescission based on fraud, and “conspiracy,” seeking damages, restitution, and injunctive relief. Subsequently plaintiffs filed a 110-page first amended complaint (FAC), adding other parties as defendants and eliminating the causes of action for statutory violations and unfair competition. Defendants‟ demurrer to the FAC was sustained with leave to amend as to the fraudulent concealment, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, and rescission causes of action and without leave to amend as to the invasion of privacy, conspiracy, and injunctive relief claims. In the tentative ruling the court put a limit on the second amended complaint of 12 pages, noting the FAC contained “rhetoric” and “hyperbole[]” and pointing out “[h]yperbole is never important. It‟s superfluous.” Plaintiffs‟ counsel asked for “at least . . . 30…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.