Does a claim for extrinsic fraud in a personal injury case have to be considered to be intrinsic fraud?

The sole case cited by plaintiffs to support their argument for extrinsic fraud, Granzella v. Jargoyhen (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 551 (Granzella), is consistent with the above authority. Granzella recognized that " '[a] showing of fraud practiced in the trial of the original action will not suffice [to vacate a final judgment]. The authorities hold this to be intrinsic fraud, and uniformly hold that since there must be an end to litigation, and the fraud was part of the case presented in the former action, equity will not reopen the litigation.' " (Id. at p. 554.) The fraud found to be extrinsic in Granzella was a false representation by a trusted family member that prevented the plaintiffs from contesting a will. Accordingly, the court held, the fraud "was just as effective to prevent them from presenting to the court the true facts concerning the invalidity of the will as if defendant had physically prevented plaintiffs from appearing in the probate proceedings." (Id. at

Page 6