special litigation committee defense in California

6 California opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2017 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
Finley v. Superior Courtgreen calctapp · 2000 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 2003–2006 2 sentences 2006(Finley v. Superior Court, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th at p. 1158 .) To determine whether the special litigation committee defense should prevail, the court does not evaluate the merits of the lawsuit, but only considers whether the committee members acted independently and made an adequate investigation of the controversy. 2003Yet McNeil cites no pertinent authority to support the proposition that such reliance constitutes a defense to claims of breach of fiduciary duty and constmctive fraud in the context of an individual action. 7 *432 In Finley v. Superior Court, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th 1152 , a derivative action, the court held that the special litigation committee defense is a valid defense in California (id. at p. 1158), but that “ ‘judicial review of the independence, good faith, and investigative techniques of a special litigation committee is governed by traditional summary judgment standards.’ ” (Id. at pp.	1	3
Patrick v. Alacer Corp.green calctapp · 2008 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017Alacer Corp . (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 995 , 1005, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 642 ( Patrick ).) But as Patrick makes clear, a board's ability to appoint a special litigation committee to investigate the merits of the derivative claim and potentially assert the special litigation committee defense does not alter or negate its right to contest the derivative plaintiff's standing in the first instance. 2017Alacer Corp . (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 995 , 1005, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 642 ( Patrick ).) But as Patrick makes clear, a board's ability to appoint a special litigation committee to investigate the merits of the derivative claim and potentially assert the special litigation committee defense does not alter or negate its right to contest the derivative plaintiff's standing in the first instance.	1	2
Auerbach v. Bennettgreen ny · 1979 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2000–2003 2 sentences 2000(Roberts v. Alabama Power Co. (Ala. 1981) 404 So.2d 629, 631-636 ; Hirsch v. Jones Intercable, Inc. (Colo. 1999) 984 P.2d 629, 636-638 ; De Moya v. Fernandez (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1990) 559 So.2d 644, 645-646 ; Millsap v. American Family Corp. (1993) 208 Ga.App. 230 [ 430 S.E.2d 385 ]; Allied Ready Mix Co v. Allen (Ky.Ct.App. 1998) 994 S.W.2d 4, 8-10 ; Auerbach v. Bennett (1979) 47 N.Y.2d 619 , 1159 630-631 [ 419 N.Y.S.2d 920 , 393 N.E.2d 994, 1000 ]; Miller v. Bargaheiser (1990) 70 Ohio App.3d 702, 705-708 [ 591 N.E.2d 1339, 1341-1343 ]; Cuker v. Mikalauskas (1997) 547 Pa. 600, 611-614 [ 692 A.2 2000(Roberts v. Alabama Power Co. (Ala. 1981) 404 So.2d 629, 631-636 ; Hirsch v. Jones Intercable, Inc. (Colo. 1999) 984 P.2d 629, 636-638 ; De Moya v. Fernandez (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1990) 559 So.2d 644, 645-646 ; Millsap v. American Family Corp. (1993) 208 Ga.App. 230 [ 430 S.E.2d 385 ]; Allied Ready Mix Co v. Allen (Ky.Ct.App. 1998) 994 S.W.2d 4, 8-10 ; Auerbach v. Bennett (1979) 47 N.Y.2d 619 , 1159 630-631 [ 419 N.Y.S.2d 920 , 393 N.E.2d 994, 1000 ]; Miller v. Bargaheiser (1990) 70 Ohio App.3d 702, 705-708 [ 591 N.E.2d 1339, 1341-1343 ]; Cuker v. Mikalauskas (1997) 547 Pa. 600, 611-614 [ 692 A.2	1	2
Desaigoudar v. Meyercordgreen calctapp · 2003 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 2 sentences 2003Yet McNeil cites no pertinent authority to support the proposition that such reliance constitutes a defense to claims of breach of fiduciary duty and constmctive fraud in the context of an individual action. 7 432 In Finley v. Superior Court, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th 1152 , a derivative action, the court held that the special litigation committee defense is a valid defense in California (id. at p. 1158), but that “ ‘judicial review of the independence, good faith, and investigative techniques of a special litigation committee is governed by traditional summary judgment standards.’ ” (Id. at pp. 2003Yet McNeil cites no pertinent authority to support the proposition that such reliance constitutes a defense to claims of breach of fiduciary duty and constmctive fraud in the context of an individual action. 7 432 In Finley v. Superior Court, supra, 80 Cal.App.4th 1152 , a derivative action, the court held that the special litigation committee defense is a valid defense in California (id. at p. 1158), but that “ ‘judicial review of the independence, good faith, and investigative techniques of a special litigation committee is governed by traditional summary judgment standards.’ ” (Id. at pp.	1	1
Cohn v. Bugasgreen calctapp · 1974 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 2 sentences 2000Bk. (1945) 67 Cal.App.2d 845, 852 [ 155 P.2d 856 ], disapproved on other grounds in Rader v. Thrasher (1962) 57 Cal.2d 244, 251-252 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 736 , 368 P.2d 360 ]; see also Cohn v. Bugas (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 381, 389, fn. 7 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 810 ].) Here, defendants filed their own motion for summary judgment based on the special litigation committee defense, but it was denied. 2000Bk. (1945) 67 Cal.App.2d 845, 852 [ 155 P.2d 856 ], disapproved on other grounds in Rader v. Thrasher (1962) 57 Cal.2d 244, 251-252 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 736 , 368 P.2d 360 ]; see also Cohn v. Bugas (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 381, 389, fn. 7 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 810 ].) Here, defendants filed their own motion for summary judgment based on the special litigation committee defense, but it was denied.	1	1
Cuker v. Mikalauskasgreen pa · 1997 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 2 sentences 2000(Roberts v. Alabama Power Co. (Ala. 1981) 404 So.2d 629, 631-636 ; Hirsch v. Jones Intercable, Inc. (Colo. 1999) 984 P.2d 629, 636-638 ; De Moya v. Fernandez (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1990) 559 So.2d 644, 645-646 ; Millsap v. American Family Corp. (1993) 208 Ga.App. 230 [ 430 S.E.2d 385 ]; Allied Ready Mix Co v. Allen (Ky.Ct.App. 1998) 994 S.W.2d 4, 8-10 ; Auerbach v. Bennett (1979) 47 N.Y.2d 619 , 1159 630-631 [ 419 N.Y.S.2d 920 , 393 N.E.2d 994, 1000 ]; Miller v. Bargaheiser (1990) 70 Ohio App.3d 702, 705-708 [ 591 N.E.2d 1339, 1341-1343 ]; Cuker v. Mikalauskas (1997) 547 Pa. 600, 611-614 [ 692 A.2 2000(Roberts v. Alabama Power Co. (Ala. 1981) 404 So.2d 629, 631-636 ; Hirsch v. Jones Intercable, Inc. (Colo. 1999) 984 P.2d 629, 636-638 ; De Moya v. Fernandez (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1990) 559 So.2d 644, 645-646 ; Millsap v. American Family Corp. (1993) 208 Ga.App. 230 [ 430 S.E.2d 385 ]; Allied Ready Mix Co v. Allen (Ky.Ct.App. 1998) 994 S.W.2d 4, 8-10 ; Auerbach v. Bennett (1979) 47 N.Y.2d 619 , 1159 630-631 [ 419 N.Y.S.2d 920 , 393 N.E.2d 994, 1000 ]; Miller v. Bargaheiser (1990) 70 Ohio App.3d 702, 705-708 [ 591 N.E.2d 1339, 1341-1343 ]; Cuker v. Mikalauskas (1997) 547 Pa. 600, 611-614 [ 692 A.2	1	1
Donovan v. Security-First National Bankgreen calctapp · 1945 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 2 sentences 2000Bk. (1945) 67 Cal.App.2d 845, 852 [ 155 P.2d 856 ], disapproved on other grounds in Rader v. Thrasher (1962) 57 Cal.2d 244, 251-252 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 736 , 368 P.2d 360 ]; see also Cohn v. Bugas (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 381, 389, fn. 7 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 810 ].) Here, defendants filed their own motion for summary judgment based on the special litigation committee defense, but it was denied. 2000Bk. (1945) 67 Cal.App.2d 845, 852 [ 155 P.2d 856 ], disapproved on other grounds in Rader v. Thrasher (1962) 57 Cal.2d 244, 251-252 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 736 , 368 P.2d 360 ]; see also Cohn v. Bugas (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 381, 389, fn. 7 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 810 ].) Here, defendants filed their own motion for summary judgment based on the special litigation committee defense, but it was denied.	1	1
Miller v. Bargaheisergreen ohioctapp · 1990 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 2 sentences 2000(Roberts v. Alabama Power Co. (Ala. 1981) 404 So.2d 629, 631-636 ; Hirsch v. Jones Intercable, Inc. (Colo. 1999) 984 P.2d 629, 636-638 ; De Moya v. Fernandez (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1990) 559 So.2d 644, 645-646 ; Millsap v. American Family Corp. (1993) 208 Ga.App. 230 [ 430 S.E.2d 385 ]; Allied Ready Mix Co v. Allen (Ky.Ct.App. 1998) 994 S.W.2d 4, 8-10 ; Auerbach v. Bennett (1979) 47 N.Y.2d 619 , 1159 630-631 [ 419 N.Y.S.2d 920 , 393 N.E.2d 994, 1000 ]; Miller v. Bargaheiser (1990) 70 Ohio App.3d 702, 705-708 [ 591 N.E.2d 1339, 1341-1343 ]; Cuker v. Mikalauskas (1997) 547 Pa. 600, 611-614 [ 692 A.2 2000(Roberts v. Alabama Power Co. (Ala. 1981) 404 So.2d 629, 631-636 ; Hirsch v. Jones Intercable, Inc. (Colo. 1999) 984 P.2d 629, 636-638 ; De Moya v. Fernandez (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1990) 559 So.2d 644, 645-646 ; Millsap v. American Family Corp. (1993) 208 Ga.App. 230 [ 430 S.E.2d 385 ]; Allied Ready Mix Co v. Allen (Ky.Ct.App. 1998) 994 S.W.2d 4, 8-10 ; Auerbach v. Bennett (1979) 47 N.Y.2d 619 , 1159 630-631 [ 419 N.Y.S.2d 920 , 393 N.E.2d 994, 1000 ]; Miller v. Bargaheiser (1990) 70 Ohio App.3d 702, 705-708 [ 591 N.E.2d 1339, 1341-1343 ]; Cuker v. Mikalauskas (1997) 547 Pa. 600, 611-614 [ 692 A.2	1	1
Rader v. Thrashergreen cal · 1962 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 2 sentences 2000Bk. (1945) 67 Cal.App.2d 845, 852 [ 155 P.2d 856 ], disapproved on other grounds in Rader v. Thrasher (1962) 57 Cal.2d 244, 251-252 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 736 , 368 P.2d 360 ]; see also Cohn v. Bugas (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 381, 389, fn. 7 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 810 ].) Here, defendants filed their own motion for summary judgment based on the special litigation committee defense, but it was denied. 2000Bk. (1945) 67 Cal.App.2d 845, 852 [ 155 P.2d 856 ], disapproved on other grounds in Rader v. Thrasher (1962) 57 Cal.2d 244, 251-252 [ 18 Cal.Rptr. 736 , 368 P.2d 360 ]; see also Cohn v. Bugas (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 381, 389, fn. 7 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 810 ].) Here, defendants filed their own motion for summary judgment based on the special litigation committee defense, but it was denied.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

Case	Cited	Years
Frazee v. Seely green calctapp · 2002 1 sentence 2003(Frazee v. Seely, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p. 634 .) Unlike the usual summary judgment motion, the issues to be decided in a motion based upon the special litigation committee defense are not those framed by the pleadings.	1	2003–2003
Will v. Engebretson & Co. green calctapp · 1989 1 sentence 2003(Will, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d at p. 1042 .) Although plaintiffs suggest that the trial court should have made a factual finding on the merits of the underlying lawsuit, on summary judgment our trial courts may not make findings of fact, but are limited to determining the existence of a factual dispute.	1	2003–2003
Millsap v. American Family Corp. green gactapp · 1993 2 sentences 2000(Roberts v. Alabama Power Co. (Ala. 1981) 404 So.2d 629, 631-636 ; Hirsch v. Jones Intercable, Inc. (Colo. 1999) 984 P.2d 629, 636-638 ; De Moya v. Fernandez (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1990) 559 So.2d 644, 645-646 ; Millsap v. American Family Corp. (1993) 208 Ga.App. 230 [ 430 S.E.2d 385 ]; Allied Ready Mix Co v. Allen (Ky.Ct.App. 1998) 994 S.W.2d 4, 8-10 ; Auerbach v. Bennett (1979) 47 N.Y.2d 619 , 1159 630-631 [ 419 N.Y.S.2d 920 , 393 N.E.2d 994, 1000 ]; Miller v. Bargaheiser (1990) 70 Ohio App.3d 702, 705-708 [ 591 N.E.2d 1339, 1341-1343 ]; Cuker v. Mikalauskas (1997) 547 Pa. 600, 611-614 [ 692 A.2 2000(Roberts v. Alabama Power Co. (Ala. 1981) 404 So.2d 629, 631-636 ; Hirsch v. Jones Intercable, Inc. (Colo. 1999) 984 P.2d 629, 636-638 ; De Moya v. Fernandez (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1990) 559 So.2d 644, 645-646 ; Millsap v. American Family Corp. (1993) 208 Ga.App. 230 [ 430 S.E.2d 385 ]; Allied Ready Mix Co v. Allen (Ky.Ct.App. 1998) 994 S.W.2d 4, 8-10 ; Auerbach v. Bennett (1979) 47 N.Y.2d 619 , 1159 630-631 [ 419 N.Y.S.2d 920 , 393 N.E.2d 994, 1000 ]; Miller v. Bargaheiser (1990) 70 Ohio App.3d 702, 705-708 [ 591 N.E.2d 1339, 1341-1343 ]; Cuker v. Mikalauskas (1997) 547 Pa. 600, 611-614 [ 692 A.2	1	2000–2000
Abbey v. Control Data Corporation green ca8 · 1979 1 sentence 2000(Abbey v. Control Data Corp. (8th Cir. 1979) 603 F.2d 724 , 730, cert. den. (1980) 444 U.S. 1017 [ 100 S.Ct. 670 , 62 L.Ed.2d 647 ]; Gall v. Exxon Corp. (S.D.N.Y. 1976) 418 F.Supp. 508, 518 .) Next, plaintiffs argue the special litigation committee defense did not meet the prerequisites of Code of Civil Procedure section 597.	1	2000–2000
Gall v. Exxon Corp. green nysd · 1976 1 sentence 2000(Abbey v. Control Data Corp. (8th Cir. 1979) 603 F.2d 724 , 730, cert. den. (1980) 444 U.S. 1017 [ 100 S.Ct. 670 , 62 L.Ed.2d 647 ]; Gall v. Exxon Corp. (S.D.N.Y. 1976) 418 F.Supp. 508, 518 .) Next, plaintiffs argue the special litigation committee defense did not meet the prerequisites of Code of Civil Procedure section 597.	1	2000–2000
De Moya v. Fernandez green fladistctapp · 1990 1 sentence 2000(Roberts v. Alabama Power Co. (Ala. 1981) 404 So.2d 629, 631-636 ; Hirsch v. Jones Intercable, Inc. (Colo. 1999) 984 P.2d 629, 636-638 ; De Moya v. Fernandez (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1990) 559 So.2d 644, 645-646 ; Millsap v. American Family Corp. (1993) 208 Ga.App. 230 [ 430 S.E.2d 385 ]; Allied Ready Mix Co v. Allen (Ky.Ct.App. 1998) 994 S.W.2d 4, 8-10 ; Auerbach v. Bennett (1979) 47 N.Y.2d 619 , *1159 630-631 [ 419 N.Y.S.2d 920 , 393 N.E.2d 994, 1000 ]; Miller v. Bargaheiser (1990) 70 Ohio App.3d 702, 705-708 [ 591 N.E.2d 1339, 1341-1343 ]; Cuker v. Mikalauskas (1997) 547 Pa. 600, 611-614 [ 692 A.2	1	2000–2000
Allied Ready Mix Co. Ex Rel. Mattingly v. Allen green kyctapp · 1999 1 sentence 2000(Roberts v. Alabama Power Co. (Ala. 1981) 404 So.2d 629, 631-636 ; Hirsch v. Jones Intercable, Inc. (Colo. 1999) 984 P.2d 629, 636-638 ; De Moya v. Fernandez (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1990) 559 So.2d 644, 645-646 ; Millsap v. American Family Corp. (1993) 208 Ga.App. 230 [ 430 S.E.2d 385 ]; Allied Ready Mix Co v. Allen (Ky.Ct.App. 1998) 994 S.W.2d 4, 8-10 ; Auerbach v. Bennett (1979) 47 N.Y.2d 619 , *1159 630-631 [ 419 N.Y.S.2d 920 , 393 N.E.2d 994, 1000 ]; Miller v. Bargaheiser (1990) 70 Ohio App.3d 702, 705-708 [ 591 N.E.2d 1339, 1341-1343 ]; Cuker v. Mikalauskas (1997) 547 Pa. 600, 611-614 [ 692 A.2	1	2000–2000
Hirsch v. Jones Intercable, Inc. green colo · 1999 1 sentence 2000(Roberts v. Alabama Power Co. (Ala. 1981) 404 So.2d 629, 631-636 ; Hirsch v. Jones Intercable, Inc. (Colo. 1999) 984 P.2d 629, 636-638 ; De Moya v. Fernandez (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1990) 559 So.2d 644, 645-646 ; Millsap v. American Family Corp. (1993) 208 Ga.App. 230 [ 430 S.E.2d 385 ]; Allied Ready Mix Co v. Allen (Ky.Ct.App. 1998) 994 S.W.2d 4, 8-10 ; Auerbach v. Bennett (1979) 47 N.Y.2d 619 , *1159 630-631 [ 419 N.Y.S.2d 920 , 393 N.E.2d 994, 1000 ]; Miller v. Bargaheiser (1990) 70 Ohio App.3d 702, 705-708 [ 591 N.E.2d 1339, 1341-1343 ]; Cuker v. Mikalauskas (1997) 547 Pa. 600, 611-614 [ 692 A.2	1	2000–2000
National Student Film Corp. v. Fenster School green scotus · 1980 1 sentence 2000(Abbey v. Control Data Corp. (8th Cir. 1979) 603 F.2d 724 , 730, cert. den. (1980) 444 U.S. 1017 [ 100 S.Ct. 670 , 62 L.Ed.2d 647 ]; Gall v. Exxon Corp. (S.D.N.Y. 1976) 418 F.Supp. 508, 518 .) Next, plaintiffs argue the special litigation committee defense did not meet the prerequisites of Code of Civil Procedure section 597.	1	2000–2000
Guntharp v. Planters Oil Mill green scotus · 1980 1 sentence 2000(Abbey v. Control Data Corp. (8th Cir. 1979) 603 F.2d 724 , 730, cert. den. (1980) 444 U.S. 1017 [ 100 S.Ct. 670 , 62 L.Ed.2d 647 ]; Gall v. Exxon Corp. (S.D.N.Y. 1976) 418 F.Supp. 508, 518 .) Next, plaintiffs argue the special litigation committee defense did not meet the prerequisites of Code of Civil Procedure section 597.	1	2000–2000
Local 520, International Union of Operating Engineers v. Jones green scotus · 1980 1 sentence 2000(Abbey v. Control Data Corp. (8th Cir. 1979) 603 F.2d 724 , 730, cert. den. (1980) 444 U.S. 1017 [ 100 S.Ct. 670 , 62 L.Ed.2d 647 ]; Gall v. Exxon Corp. (S.D.N.Y. 1976) 418 F.Supp. 508, 518 .) Next, plaintiffs argue the special litigation committee defense did not meet the prerequisites of Code of Civil Procedure section 597.	1	2000–2000
Roberts v. Alabama Power Co. green ala · 1981 1 sentence 2000(Roberts v. Alabama Power Co. (Ala. 1981) 404 So.2d 629, 631-636 ; Hirsch v. Jones Intercable, Inc. (Colo. 1999) 984 P.2d 629, 636-638 ; De Moya v. Fernandez (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1990) 559 So.2d 644, 645-646 ; Millsap v. American Family Corp. (1993) 208 Ga.App. 230 [ 430 S.E.2d 385 ]; Allied Ready Mix Co v. Allen (Ky.Ct.App. 1998) 994 S.W.2d 4, 8-10 ; Auerbach v. Bennett (1979) 47 N.Y.2d 619 , *1159 630-631 [ 419 N.Y.S.2d 920 , 393 N.E.2d 994, 1000 ]; Miller v. Bargaheiser (1990) 70 Ohio App.3d 702, 705-708 [ 591 N.E.2d 1339, 1341-1343 ]; Cuker v. Mikalauskas (1997) 547 Pa. 600, 611-614 [ 692 A.2	1	2000–2000

Where else courts name it

CA 6 (2000–2017) NV 3 (2017–2017)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check