sample breach of contract, common counts, and fraud complaint

David Jordan, Esq. State Bar # 69052
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID JORDAN
222 West Broadway, Suite 500
GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91201
(818) 845-3238


Attorney for Plaintiff
FRED FLINTSTONE

 

MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

FRED FLINTSTONE

v.

BARNEY RUBLE

COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT,
MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED AND FRAUD


COMES NOW, the PLAINTIFF FRED FLINTSTONE and alleges and complains as follows:
.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT
1. Plaintiff is and at all times mentioned herein was an individual who resides in the County, and City of Los Angeles, of California.
2. Defendant is an individual and resident of Los Angeles, California.
3. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise of defendants named herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, are unknown to plaintiff who therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to show the true names and capacities of these defendants when the same have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each fictitiously named defendant is responsible in law and in fact for the obligations alleged herein.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times each of the defendants was acting within the scope and course of his or her agency and employment.
4. The contract upon which this action is based was made and was to be performed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. That contract provides that the County of Los Angeles is the proper venue for any action arising out of the agreement. The contract provides for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees to the prevailing party in any dispute arising out of the contract.
5. On or about July 19, 1996, plaintiff and defendants and each of them, entered into an oral agreement whereby plaintiff agreed to loan defendants, and each of them, the sum of $60,000 plus interest at the legal rate which defendants were to repay at the time of the sale of defendant Lloyd's home in Southern California.
6. Plaintiff has performed all of the conditions, covenants and promises required by it to be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract, by loaning to defendants, and each of them, the aforementioned sum of $60,000.
7. Defendants, and each of them, breached their oral agreement with plaintiff by failing and refusing to perform in good faith their promise to sell the home in Southern California and by withdrawing said home from the real estate market.
8. As a result of the breach of the defendants, and each of them, in the obligations pursuant to the oral contract, the entire sum of $60,000 loaned to defendants, and each of them, is now due, owing, and unpaid. Demand has been made on defendants, and each of them, for repayment but defendants, and each of them have failed and refused and continue to fail and refuse, to repay the sum loaned by plaintiff.
9. Defendants, and each of them, have therefore breached their oral contract with plaintiff, who has been damaged thereby in the sum of $60,000 plus interest at the legal rate from and after the date due according to proof.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED
10. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs one through ten above.
11. On or about July 19, 1996 at Los Angeles, California, defendants, and each of them, became indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $60,000 for money lent by plaintiff to defendants, and each of them, at their instance and request.
12. No part of the sum loaned has been repaid, although payment has been demanded, leaving the balance due, owing, and unpaid to plaintiffs in the amount of $60,000 plus interest at the legal rate from and after July 19, 1996.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD
13. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs one through thirteen above.
14. On or about July 19, 1996 at Los Angeles, California, defendants and each of them represented to plaintiff that they would use their best efforts to sell the Southern California home to repay plaintiff. These representations were false and defendants knew the falsity of these statements at the time they were made.
15. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendants, and each of them, had no intention to sell the Southern California home, and immediately withdrew said home from the real estate market upon receipt of the proceeds from the loan.
16. Plaintiff relied on the representations of defendant and would not have made the loan otherwise.
17. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendants, and each of them, withdrew the home from the market for the specific purpose of depriving plaintiff of its funds, to harass plaintiff in its business, and to defraud plaintiff, all with malice toward plaintiff.
Plaintiff has been injured by loss of use of the funds, loss of reputation, and an inability to compete in the market without the use of said funds. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $75,000 for said acts.
18. These acts were malicious, fraudulent and oppressive, justifying an award of punitive damages so that defendants and each of them will not engage in such conduct in the future and make an example of them.

WHEREFORE PLAINTIFF PRAYS for judgment against defendants, and each of them as follows:
1. For the sum of $60,000 for breach of contract and the value of its performance.
2. For interest thereon at the legal rate from and after July 19, 1996.
3. For $75,000 general damages for defendants' fraud.
4. For punitive damages according to proof.
5. For reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred herein.
6. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.


October 1, 1996


_____________________
David Jordan, Esq.
Law Offices of David Jordan
Attorneys for Plaintiff

updated: 6/12/00