Legal Opinion

Haro v. Ibarra

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 23, 2009No. B213499PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CHANEY, J.

We address in this opinion two issues. The first is the sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint to survive demurrer. Second, we address whether equitable considerations might warrant an exception to the requirement that a shareholder maintain continuous ownership of stock in order to maintain standing to bring a shareholder derivative action. We will hold that the allegations here were sufficient to survive the demurrers and that equitable considerations bear upon shareholder standing.

Plaintiffs and appellants, Carlos Haro, Carlos Meza, Marcos Lemor, Antonio Alarcon,…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Schifando v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
  2. City of Dinuba v. County of TulareCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Grosset v. WenaasCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
  4. Marshall v. Gibson, Dunn & CrutcherCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  5. Lewis v. WardSupreme Court of Delaware · 2004

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Holistic Supplements v. StarkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2021
  2. Sirott v. Super. Ct.California Court of Appeal · 2022

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API