January 16, 2022

Volume XII, Number 16

Advertisement
Advertisement

January 15, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 14, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

This California Court Held That A Limited Partnership Is No Person

In preceding posts, I commented on the multifarious definitions of “person” in the Securities Act of 1933, the Exchange Act of 1934 and various laws within the California Corporations Code.  As noted, the Corporations Code’s definition of “person” is short but open-ended:

“Person” includes a corporation as well as a natural person.

Cal. Corp. Code § 18.  It turns out that Section 17 of the California Code of Civil Procedure includes an identical definition.  One might expect that a court would have little trouble concluding that this definition of “person” compasses a limited partnership.  However, the Court of Appeal in Diamond View v. Herz, 180 Cal. App. 3d 612 (1986) concluded otherwise.

It turns out that the case began in the plaintiff’s tavern where the defendant allegedly “becomes drunk or otherwise belligerent [sic] and harasses, annoys, and starts fights with Plaintiff’s patrons”.  The plaintiff sought, and obtained, an injunction pursuant to former CCP § 527.6 restraining the defendant from “alarming, annoying or harassing” the plaintiff and its manager.  The defendant appealed arguing that the plaintiff was not a person in whose favor an injunction may be granted under the statute.

After observing that “[t]he notoriously ambiguous term ‘person’ has long plagued the law”, the Court concluded the term must be read in context.  This required a bit of creative reading, as the phrase “unless otherwise apparent from the context” appeared in second paragraph of Section 17 while “person” was defined in the first.  (The statute was subsequently amended so that this qualifying phrase now applies to all of the defined terms in Section 17.)  Having creatively blended the various statutory provisions, the Court then analyzed the legislative intent in enacting CCP § 527.6.  According to the Court, the legislature intended to protect only an individual’s constitutional rights to pursue safety, happiness and privacy under the California Constitution.

Unless one is willing to anthropomorphize limited partnerships, it is difficult to envisage how they might be alarmed, annoyed or harassed.  Nonetheless, it is always distressing to see courts engage in interpretative gymnastics when the legislature could have easily used “individual” or “natural person”.

[Note to readers: Although there is a current CCP § 527.6, the statute at issue in this case was a former version of the statute, which has been amended many times in the ensuing years.]

© 2010-2022 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP National Law Review, Volume VII, Number 255
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Keith Paul Bishop, Corporate Transactions Lawyer, finance securities attorney, Allen Matkins Law Firm
Partner

Keith Bishop works with privately held and publicly traded companies on federal and state corporate and securities transactions, compliance, and governance matters. He is highly-regarded for his in-depth knowledge of the distinctive corporate and regulatory requirements faced by corporations in the state of California.

While many law firms have a great deal of expertise in federal or Delaware corporate law, Keith’s specific focus on California corporate and securities law is uncommon. A former California state regulator of securities and financial institutions, Keith has decades of...

949-851-5428
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement