of an elder with intent to defraud. Cal. Welf. And InstCode § 15610.30(a)(1). An “elder” is defined as “any person residing in th[e] state, 65 years of age or older.” Id. at § 15610.27. Several courts have held that this California statute creates a civil cause of action for elder financial abuse. See Genton v. Vestin Realty Mortgage II, Inc., 2007 WL 951838, at *2 (S.D.Cal.). Defendant’s arguments that plaintiffs claim must fail because she is not a “dependant” adult, and because payments made to an attorney for services rendered cannot constitute “taking” or “appropriation”, do not find clear support in the statute or relevant case law. Cf. Cal. Welf. And InstCode § 15610.23 (defining “dependant adult”) with § 15610.30 (defining “elder”); see, e.g., Negrete, 444 F.Supp.2d at 1002-03 (<HOLDING>). Here, plaintiff alleges that defendant knew
holding not an abuse of discretion to deny funds holding it was not an abuse of discretion to deny funds holding that a plaintiff who pled in her complaint that her law firm actively misled her in support of her request for application of the discovery rule had sufficiently pled the application of the doctrine holding that plaintiff adequately pleaded loss under the cfaa by alleging costs of at least 5000 in terms of responding to defendants conduct and conducting damage assessments holding that plaintiff sufficiently pleaded elder abuse by alleging that the defendant investment firm took or appropriated her funds by use of a fraudulent scheme