June 29, 2022

Volume XII, Number 180

Advertisement
Advertisement

June 28, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 27, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

California Court Rules Plaintiff Is Not Required To Advance Defendant’s Legal Expenses

Imagine how frustrated you would be if you sued someone and the defendant responded by demanding that you advance his legal expenses in defending your lawsuit.  The plaintiff in Allergia, Inc. v. Bouboulis, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7759 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2017) found itself in just that situation.  U.S. District Judge Janis L. Sammartino, however, spared the plaintiff the vexation of having to fund both sides of its own lawsuit.

The plaintiff had sued the defendant for (1) declaratory judgment of patent application ownership and/or other patent and intellectual property rights; (2) breaches of fiduciary duty and/or implied contract; and (3) fraud.  The defendant filed a motion seeking advancement of his expenses pursuant to the plaintiff’s bylaws and Section 317 of the California Corporations Code.  Judge Sammartino agreed with the defendant’s argument that his right to indemnification (Section 317(c)) was conceptually and procedurally distinct form his right to advancement (Section 317(f)).  However, Judge Sammartino agreed with the plaintiff that the Defendant was not entitled to advancement of expenses because he was not sued by reason of the fact that he was an agent and/or officer of the plaintiff.  Although one might suppose that the plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claims might have been brought by reason of the defendant’s position with the plaintiff, Judge Sammartino found that the allegations implicated the defendant’s personal motives and were not performed by the defendant in furtherance of his corporate functions.

© 2010-2022 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP National Law Review, Volume VII, Number 30
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