Favila v. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

SANDRA CORRALES FAVILA,

as Executor, etc.,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP et al.

Defendants and Respondents.

No. B215096

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BC379462)

SANDRA CORRALES FAVILA,

as Executor, etc.,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP et al.

Defendants and Respondents.

No. B216822

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BC399377)

California Courts of Appeal

Second Appellate District

Division Seven

Filed September 22, 2010

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

AND DENYING REHEARING

(NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT)

     THE COURT:

     It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on September 3, 2010 be modified as follows:

     Footnote 26, insert the words ?for purposes of ascertaining accrual of the statute of limitations? and delete the citation to Smith v. Superior Court (1931) 211 Cal. 482, 487.  Footnote 26 will now read:

In the abstract, because this is a derivative action on behalf of Motion Graphix, the limitations question is when did Motion Graphix have actual or constructive knowledge of Katten Muchin?s alleged wrongdoing.  However, because Souther was the president and sole director of Motion Graphix and, according to the Estate?s complaint, was in full control of the corporation, at least at the pleading stage the adverse domination doctrine precludes imputing Souther?s knowledge of Katten Muchin?s role as corporate counsel to Motion Graphix for purposes of ascertaining accrual of the statute of limitations.  (See San Leandro Canning Co., Inc. v. Perillo (1931) 211 Cal. 482, 487 [?the statute of limitations does not commence to run against unlawful acts and expenditures made by or under the direction of the directors of the corporation while they were in full control of its affairs and of the expenditure of its funds?].)

     Respondent?s petition for rehearing is denied.  There is no change in the judgment.

PERLUSS, P. J.                               ZELON, J.                 JACKSON, J.