Aram Arakelyan v. Danny Still, Jr.

MEMORANDUM

Defendants appeal the district court’s order affirming the judgment of the bankruptcy court. Because the parties are familiar with the factual background and procedural history of this case, we need not discuss them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

1. “Whether a given representation is an expression of opinion or a statement of fact depends on the circumstances of the particular case.” Daniels v. Oldenburg, 100 Cal.App.2d 724, 727 , 224 P.2d 472 (1950). “[W]hen a party possesses or holds itself out as possessing superior knowledge or special information or expertise regarding the subject matter and a plaintiff is so situated that it may reasonably rely on such supposed knowledge, information, or expertise, the defendant’s representation may be treated as one of material fact.” Bily v. Arthur Young & Co., 3 Cal.4th 370, 408 , 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 51 , 834 P.2d 745 (1992). Here, Aram Arakel-yan’s statement — that the only way to save the property was through a straw sale— was offered as an assertion of fact by someone who held himself out as having superior knowledge of mortgages and home foreclosures.

“Whether reliance is justified is a…