Kruss v. Booth
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SILLS, P. J.
As we explain anon, plaintiff in this difficult shareholder derivative suit must be given leave to amend his second amended complaint so as to allege violations of director fiduciary duty under California law. Plaintiff had alleged violations of California law in his prior, first amended complaint, but the trial court—erroneously as we show below—thought the case was governed entirely by Nevada law and required plaintiff to plead violations of Nevada law in the second amended complaint.
But then, even though plaintiff had alleged violations of fiduciary duty under Nevada…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Blank v. KirwanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Gruenberg v. Aetna InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Casey v. U.S. Bank National Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Berg & Berg Enterprises, LLC v. BoyleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Vantagepoint Venture Partners 1996 v. Examen, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2005
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Favila v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLPCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Dollar Tree Stores Inc. v. Toyama Partners LLCDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2012
- Busse v. United Panam Financial Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2014
- Simpson v. Kroger Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2013
- Silguero v. Creteguard, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2010
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.