Q: Is it significant deficiency alleging fraud?

A: Based on California law, not explicitly listing California Civil Code Section 1572 in a complaint alleging fraud is unlikely to be a significant deficiency, as long as the complaint sufficiently alleges the elements of fraud. Here's why:

1. California Civil Code Section 1572 defines actual fraud, while Sections 1709 and 1710 provide a cause of action for fraudulent deceit. Alleging violations of Sections 1709 and 1710 effectively covers the key elements of fraud.

2. The essential elements of a fraud claim in California are: (a) misrepresentation, (b) knowledge of falsity, (c) intent to defraud or induce reliance, (d) justifiable reliance, and (e) resulting damage. If these elements are properly pleaded in the complaint, the specific statutes listed may be less critical.

3. California follows a "notice pleading" standard, which means that a complaint is sufficient if it alleges facts that state a cause of action under any possible legal theory. As long as the complaint provides sufficient facts to support a fraud claim, the exact statutes cited may not be dispositive.

4. However, it is generally best practice to cite all relevant statutes in a complaint to demonstrate the legal basis for the claim and to avoid potential challenges from the opposing party.

In summary, while citing all relevant statutes, including Section 1572, is preferred, not doing so is unlikely to be a significant deficiency if the complaint otherwise properly alleges the elements of fraud under California law. The strength of the factual allegations and the sufficiency of the pleading as a whole are typically more important than the specific statutes listed.