ARTICLE
8 September 2022

Alleged Corporate Murder Merits A Jury Trial

AM
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

Contributor

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP logo
Allen Matkins, founded in 1977, is a California-based law firm with more than 200 attorneys in four major metropolitan areas of California: Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, and San Francisco. The firm's areas of focus include real estate, construction, land use, environmental and natural resources, corporate and securities, real estate and commercial finance, bankruptcy, restructurings and creditors' rights, joint ventures, and tax; labor and employment, and trials, litigation, risk management, and alternative dispute resolution in all of these areas. For more information about Allen Matkins please visit www.allenmatkins.com.
The California Constitution declares that trial by jury is an "inviolate right" that "shall be secured to all". Cal. Const. Art. I, §16.
United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

"Murder most foul, as in the best it is.
But this most foul, strange and unnatural."*

The California Constitution declares that trial by jury is an "inviolate right" that "shall be secured to all". Cal. Const. Art. I,§16. Despite this expansive language, this right in the civil context is generally limited to cases in which the "gist" of the action is legal. If the "gist" is equitable, there is generally no right to a jury. Thus, a party's right to a trial by jury depends upon the court's view of the "gist" of the action.

"Business is business, and it's a murder most foul"**

Drawing the line between legal and equitable actions becomes a bit more complicated when fiduciaries are involved. InZF Micro Solutions, Inc. v. TAT Capital Partners, Ltd., 2022 WL 4090879, the cross-complainant alleged that "TAT Capital Partners, Ltd., murdered its [the cross-complainant's] predecessor by inserting a board member who poisoned it". The trial court decided that there was no right to a jury trial and the cross-complainant appealed. Writing for the court, Justice William W. Bedsworth found that the "gist" of the claim was for compensatory damages for the "murder" of the predecessor corporation and that there were no competing equities to be weighed. Thus, the trial court erred in denying a jury trial.

The Court's holding creates an interesting puzzle. In Rankin v. Frebank, 47 Cal. App. 3d 75, 121 Cal. Rptr. 348 (1975), the California Court of Appeal held that there is no right to a jury trial in a derivative action. In doing so, it rejected the U.S. Supreme Court's approach to the Seventh Amendment in Ross v. Bernhard, (1970) 396 U.S. 531 [24 L. Ed.2d 729, 90 S.Ct. 733]. See also Caira v. Offner, 126 Cal. App. 4th 12, 39, 24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 233, 253 (2005). The cross-complaint inZF Micro Solutions, Inc.was brought by the corporation and not as a derivative action. It does not make a lot of sense (at least to me) that a right to trial by jury inheres when the action is brought by the corporation but not when the action is brought derivatively by the shareholders.

_______________________________________

*Wm. Shakespeare,The Tragedy of Hamlet Prince of Denmark, Act I, Sc. V

** Bob Dylan

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More