arrow_back LawSnap

About

Practitioner Analysis

Evidence-based articles for working litigators. We review court orders and identify the patterns that determine outcomes.

May 21, 2026 C.D. Cal.

What Survives Rule 12(b)(6) in the Central District of California: Five Claim Types, Two Outcomes Each

We reviewed 44 federal court rulings from the Central District to map exactly what level of factual detail separates dismissed complaints from surviving ones — by claim type. For each of five claim types, we show what failed, what survived, and name the variable that made the difference.

Read arrow_forward

California state court

Fraud Specificity in Cross-Complaints — Lazar Applies Every Time You Amend

Fraud cross-complaints get sustained on demurrer more reliably than almost any other pleading in California. The Lazar specificity rule doesn't relax with each amendment — it tightens.

Read arrow_forward

California state court

Common Counts and Quantum Meruit in Cross-Complaints — What Survives Demurrer

Common counts survive alongside an express contract at the pleading stage. Quantum meruit does not — unless the contract's enforceability or scope is genuinely in dispute. Here's how courts draw the line.

Read arrow_forward

You Survived the Fraud Demurrer. Here's Why You'll Lose at MSJ.

The economic loss rule kills fraud claims at MSJ that survived demurrer -- because discovery reveals the 'inducement' was really about contract performance. Complete guide to what the moving party builds in discovery and what the opposing party must lock in at deposition before the motion arrives.

Read arrow_forward

Your Section 2033.420 Motion Starts at the Deposition, Not After Trial.

Cost-of-proof sanctions under CCP section 2033.420 are triggered by 'thereafter proves' -- not just trial. The sanctions motion is built at two earlier stages: RFA service (what to request) and deposition (seeding the cost record). Complete workflow for the practitioner who wants section 2033.420 to be a real threat, not a post-trial afterthought.

Read arrow_forward

The LD Clause That Leaves the Non-Breaching Party With Nothing.

A liquidated damages clause anchored to total contract value (not breach-specific value) gets voided as a penalty. When it's also the exclusive remedy, voiding it leaves the non-breaching party scrambling for actual damages they didn't build a record for. Complete guide to the three-step failure pattern and how to draft -- or litigate -- out of it.

Read arrow_forward

The 'Subject to Definitive Agreement' Clause and the Rattagan Trap: Why Your Non-Binding LOI Still Has a Duty to Disclose

Rattagan (2024) rewired when a party owes a concealment duty -- it now requires a pre-existing transactional relationship. Walks through what that means for deal lawyers who assumed a non-binding LOI meant no duty, and what facts now make or break the concealment claim at demurrer.

Read arrow_forward

Promissory Fraud or Just a Broken Deal? How Courts Separate the Two -- and Why Most Plaintiffs Get It Wrong

The distinction between a representation of existing fact (fraud) and a forward-looking promise (not fraud unless intent not to perform) is the threshold question in every Deal Gone Wrong case. Presents the Tenzer rule in plain terms and shows why most commercial fraud complaints mischaracterize broken promises as actionable misrepresentation.

Read arrow_forward

The Expert Declaration That Loses an MSJ: What 'Competent Evidence' Actually Requires Under CCP § 437c(d)

Many commercial MSJs are lost not because the law is against you but because the expert declaration doesn't meet the CCP § 437c(d) threshold -- personal knowledge, admissible, setting forth specific facts. Shows what an inadequate expert declaration looks like at the MSJ stage and what the court does with it.

Read arrow_forward

The Prior-Representation Pattern: Using MTC to Build the Scienter Record No One Else Is Looking For

Courts are reluctant to infer scienter from one broken promise, but proof that the defendant made similar representations to other counterparties that also proved false changes the inference. Shows how to structure MTC requests to surface the prior-representation pattern and how to argue its significance at MSJ.

Read arrow_forward

Five RFA Targets That Win the Defense MSJ Before Depositions Start

Defense discovery in commercial fraud starts with RFAs on the plaintiff's reliance, damages, and corroboration. Most defense counsel bury these in the interrogatory set. Shows which five RFA targets create the factually-devoid record on key elements -- and why getting responses before deposition locks in the best version of the evidence.

Read arrow_forward

Common Counts in a Cross-Complaint: When They Add Value and When They Invite a Demurrer

Common counts (open book account, account stated, money had and received) are fast to plead but routinely demurred in cases where an express contract governs the relationship. Shows when common counts add genuine tactical value alongside a breach of contract claim -- and when they create redundancy the opposing party will use against you.

Read arrow_forward

The SOL Deposition: Building the Discovery-Date Record Before the Defendant Knows You Need It

Defense attorneys don't build the SOL record in plaintiff depositions because they're focused on fraud elements. But the discovery-date question -- what did the plaintiff know and when -- needs to be locked in before the plaintiff has drafted their SOL declaration. Shows the specific deposition agenda for locking in the discovery-date facts.

Read arrow_forward

The Independently Wrongful Act That Tortious Interference Claims Must Have

California requires that interference with prospective economic advantage be accomplished by independently wrongful means -- not just competitive conduct. At deposition, defense counsel need to lock in that the defendant's competitive acts were lawful. Shows how to structure the deposition to establish the "no independently wrongful act" defense.

Read arrow_forward

The 'Non-Binding' LOI That Wasn't: How Carve-Outs and Duty-to-Negotiate Clauses Survive the Subject-to Clause

"This LOI is non-binding" does not end the legal analysis. Confidentiality, exclusivity, and good-faith-negotiation provisions carved out as binding remain enforceable even after a blanket non-binding clause. Maps the carve-out analysis and shows why defense counsel who lead with the subject-to clause often leave a Copeland exposure unclosed.

Read arrow_forward

California's LD Clause Test Is Backward-Looking -- and Most Litigants Brief It Wrong

CCP § 1671(b) asks whether the clause was reasonable at the time of contracting, not whether it matches actual post-breach damages. Retrospective analysis (comparing clause amount to what actually happened) is impermissible. Many litigants don't know this and waste their briefs on irrelevant post-breach comparisons. The Gormley six-factor framework gives structure for the correct analysis.

Read arrow_forward

Challenging an LD Clause? Bring Evidence or Don't Bother

A Norwalk corpus case shows what happens when a party argues an LD clause is unreasonable without presenting any evidence on commercial custom, anticipated harm, or bargaining power -- the presumption holds and the clause is enforced. Shows the seven-factor evidentiary burden and what kind of evidence moves a court off the presumption.

Read arrow_forward

Also on LawSnap

Litigation

Contracts

Compliance

Legal Intelligence