Legal Opinion
Paclink Communications International, Inc. v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided July 19, 2001No. B149318PublishedCited by 54 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
VOGEL (C. S.), P. J.
Introduction
In this mandate proceeding, we conclude that three causes of action alleged by members of a limited liability company against two defendants can only be brought as a derivative action on behalf of the company. We therefore issue a writ compelling the superior court to sustain without leave to amend the demurrer filed on that basis.
Factual and Procedural Background
Because the function of a demurrer is to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint, we assume the truth of all facts properly pled. (See, e.g., Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 [216…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Blank v. KirwanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Jones v. H. F. Ahmanson & Co.California Supreme Court · 1969
- Crain v. Electronic Memories and Magnetics Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1975
- Rankin v. Frebank Co.California Court of Appeal · 1975
3Cited by54 opinions
- Oakland Raiders v. National Football LeagueCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2005
- Nodak Mutual Insurance Company v. Ward County Farm BureauNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2004
- Galaz v. Galaz (In Re Galaz)Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014
- People v. Pacific LandmarkCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.