18 Cited authorities

Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc.
500 U.S. 90 (1991) Cited 1,227 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding parties' legal theories not binding on Court, which "retains the independent power to identify and apply the proper construction of governing law"
Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
246 Cal.App.4th 1150 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) Cited 232 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding complaint failed to adequately plead successor liability at California's demurrer stage where it did not allege that the defendant "purchased or otherwise acquired [the corporation's] principal assets"
In re Tyson Foods
919 A.2d 563 (Del. Ch. 2007) Cited 262 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "no theory will toll the statute beyond the point where the plaintiff was objectively aware, or should have been aware, of facts giving rise to the wrong."
Spiegel v. Buntrock
571 A.2d 767 (Del. 1990) Cited 215 times 6 Legal Analyses
Concluding that same shareholder cannot both make a demand on a company and argue demand futility in a lawsuit
Sosinsky v. Grant
6 Cal.App.4th 1548 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) Cited 194 times
Holding it improper to take judicial notice of the truth of a court's factual findings where principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel do not apply
VICI Racing, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
763 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2014) Cited 83 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that, under Delaware law, " defendant need not provide an accounting of the costs a plaintiff should have avoided, but the burden is properly on a defendant to articulate the actions that would have been reasonable under the circumstances to mitigate loss"
Casterson v. Superior Court
101 Cal.App.4th 177 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 102 times
In Casterson, the plaintiff asserted section 35330's immunity should not be construed to protect a district's employee for injuries caused by the employee's negligence during the field trip because subdivision (d) did not expressly cover employees, while other provisions of the Education Code limiting liability for personal injuries did expressly cover employees.
Align Technology, Inc. v. Tran
179 Cal.App.4th 949 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 80 times
Holding "legislative purpose of former section 439, the predecessor of section 426.30 . . . was to provide for the settlement, in a single action, of all conflicting claims between the parties arising out of the same transaction" and to "avoid a multiplicity of actions"
Ingram v. Flippo
74 Cal.App.4th 1280 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) Cited 85 times
Finding that whether or not a prosecution was actually initiated in not a meaningful distinction
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court
114 Cal.App.4th 434 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) Cited 66 times 2 Legal Analyses
Adopting the Restatement's definition of “internal affairs”

Order Submitted Matter

18 Cited authorities

Holding parties' legal theories not binding on Court, which "retains the independent power to identify and apply the proper construction of governing law"

Holding complaint failed to adequately plead successor liability at California's demurrer stage where it did not allege that the defendant "purchased or otherwise acquired [the corporation's] principal assets"

Holding that "no theory will toll the statute beyond the point where the plaintiff was objectively aware, or should have been aware, of facts giving rise to the wrong."

Concluding that same shareholder cannot both make a demand on a company and argue demand futility in a lawsuit

Holding it improper to take judicial notice of the truth of a court's factual findings where principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel do not apply

Holding that, under Delaware law, " defendant need not provide an accounting of the costs a plaintiff should have avoided, but the burden is properly on a defendant to articulate the actions that would have been reasonable under the circumstances to mitigate loss"

Holding "legislative purpose of former section 439, the predecessor of section 426.30 . . . was to provide for the settlement, in a single action, of all conflicting claims between the parties arising out of the same transaction" and to "avoid a multiplicity of actions"

Finding that whether or not a prosecution was actually initiated in not a meaningful distinction

Adopting the Restatement's definition of “internal affairs”