When Demanding Inspection, Don't Overlook The Demand

Allen Matkins
Contact

The wheels of justice turn slowly.  Two years ago, I wrote about Judge Robert C. Jones's ruling in Weinfeld v. Minor, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30117 (D. Nev. Mar. 8, 2016).  In that ruling, Judge Jones tackled tackled the question "whether a judgment in an action by a corporation's stockholders suing derivatively on behalf of the corporation is binding under the rules of res judicata in a subsequent action by other stockholders suing derivatively on behalf of the corporation?" He concluded that under Nevada law, the prior lawsuit did not bar a subsequent derivative suit because the plaintiffs in the current suit were "neither parties nor privies to the previous action."

Now, two years hence, Judge Jones has issued a ruling on the parties' motions for summary judgment.   Weinfeld v. Minor, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51943.  Although his ruling addresses a number of different issues, I will for today focus only on his decision with respect to the plaintiffs' stockholder inspection claim

Defendants cite six Plaintiff depositions for admissions as to a lack of any written demand. Plaintiffs produce no evidence to the contrary and do not claim the requirements of the statute were satisfied.  They simply argue that the statute should not apply. . . . There is nothing bizarre about 15%-ownership and written-demand requirements before a corporation must allow shareholders to go rummaging through file cabinets in corporate offices. Plaintiffs are free to try to convince the Nevada Legislature to change the requirements,  but the Court cannot rewrite the statute judicially. It clearly applies here, and Plaintiffs clearly have no evidence that they satisfied it. The Court is bound to grant summary judgment against this claim.

I think two conclusions can be drawn from the foregoing.  First, if a statute requires a written demand, it is generally a good idea to make a written demand and be able to evidence that demand.  Second, it is refreshing to see a judge not rewrite a statute, NRS 78.275(1), when it is plain on its face.

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Allen Matkins | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Allen Matkins
Contact
more
less

Allen Matkins on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide