Cummings v. HPG International, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that negligent misrepresentation claims cannot be predicated on statements of opinion
• explaining that statements of “commercial puffing” are inactionable statements of opinion
• finding no abuse of discretion in district court's decision to grant 23 default judgment for repeated failure to comply with court orders, including order to appear in 24 person
• affirming summary judgment for defendant on 93A claim based on a misrepresentation where record failed to show that the defendant made any deceitful or negligently false statements at the time the statements were made
• \There is an important threshold determination for any misrepresentation claim .... [O]nly statements of fact are actionable.\
• “There can be no claim of unfairness based on a misrepresentation [under Chapter 93A] where…[plaintiff] has failed to show [defendant] made any deceitful or even negligently false statements.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).