California Court of Appeal

In plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty against defendants, trial court's sustaining of defendant's demurrers to the third amended complaint is affirmed as plaintiff failed to plead a cognizable claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual directors. Furthermore, even if a cognizable claim had been alleged, on the pleaded facts, the business judgment rule insulated the directors from personal liability on the alleged claims for breach of fiduciary duty as a matter of law.

Appellate Information

• Decided 10/29/2009
• Published 10/29/2009

Judges

• DUFFY, J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Allen Matkins Leck Gamble, Mallory & Natsis, Robert R. Moore, Michael J. Betz, San Francisco, Kevin Ryan, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• Winston & Strawn, Robert A. Julian, Nicole P. Dogwill, San Francisco, for Defendant and Respondent John Boyle., O'Melveny & Myers, Meredith N. Landy, Lori E. Romley, Sara M. Folchi, Menlo Park, for Defendants and Respondents.