On February 18, 2021 a
Complaint,Petition
was filed
involving a dispute between
Kreyssler Joan,
and
Canyon Country Enterprises A California Corporation,
for Writ - Administrative Mandamus (General Jurisdiction)
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
a
Co, Ti Oro
My
Len
s oO4
OF
Shit
Sten p My 2 06, Nig.
Joan___Kreyssler___vs. Canyon __ Country Fentative decision on petition Breper mit 7 bp
Enterprises, 21STCP00518 inspection of records: granted ay Coup
8 Lin "C6,
, Cort9
wy
Petitioner Joan Kreyssler (“Kreyssler”) applies for a writ of mandate commanding
Respondent Canyon Country Enterprises (“CCE”) to permit inspection of its corporate records.
The court has read and considered the moving papers and response! (no reply was filed) and
renders the following tentative decision.
A. Statement of the Case
1. Pe yn
Petitioner Kreyssler commenced this proceeding on February 18, 2021, alleging a cause of
action to compel inspection of corporate records. The verified Petition alleges in pertinent part
s follows.
Kreyssler is the owner of 11,490 shares of common stock of CCE out of 38,410 available
shares, approximately 30% of the stock. Kreyssler has been deprived access to corporate records
by the other shareholder of CCE.
On February 8, 2021, pursuant to Corporations Code Sections 1601(a) and (b), Kreyssler
made written demand on CCE, through its attorney, Jeff Mayes, Esq. of Radcliff Mayes LLP, to
make available for inspection and copying the accounting books and records of CCE, including all
financial statements of CCE according to Corporations Code section 114. CCE has failed to
comply with Kreyssler’s demand.
Kreyssler’s purpose in demanding inspection is reasonably related to her interest as a
shareholder in CCE in that since she has been deprived access to CCE’s records and has no ability
to monitor how CCE’s resources are being used. Kreyssler is entitled to receive payments and
distributions based upon her-shareholder status, but she has not received all of the payments to
which she is entitled. Kreyssler has been deprived of any records showing what distributions the
other shareholder is receiving.
Kreyssler has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law other
than the relief sought in this Petition.
B. Standard of Review
“A writ of mandate may be issued by any court to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board,
or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting
62
po from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of
Ped a right or office to which the party is entitled, and from which the party is unlawfully precluded
oA
Pot
cD
ho ' Respondent’s response entitled “Answer”, filed on January 14, 2022, is untimely. Any
Bo opposition was due on December 8, 2021 and trial was set for January 18,2022. When Petitioner
did not receive an opposition, she filed a notice of non-opposition. The court sua sponte
continued the hearing to January 14, 2022 and did not alter the briefing schedule. Respondent
also failed to provide a courtesy copy of the opposition in violation of the Presiding Judge’s First
Amended General Order.
Solely because Respondent does not oppose the Petition, the court has read and considered the
response.
Document Filed Date
January 27, 2022
Case Filing Date
February 18, 2021
Category
Writ - Administrative Mandamus (General Jurisdiction)
Status
Court Finding - After Court Trial 02/14/2022
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
a Co, Ti Oro My Len s oO4 OF Shit Sten p My 2 06, Nig. Joan___Kreyssler___vs. Canyon __ Country Fentative decision on petition Breper mit 7 bp Enterprises, 21STCP00518 inspection of records: granted ay Coup 8 Lin "C6, , Cort9 wy Petitioner Joan Kreyssler (“Kreyssler”) applies for a writ of mandate commanding Respondent Canyon Country Enterprises (“CCE”) to permit inspection of its corporate records. The court has read and considered the moving papers and response! (no reply was filed) and renders the following tentative decision. A. Statement of the Case 1. Pe yn Petitioner Kreyssler commenced this proceeding on February 18, 2021, alleging a cause of action to compel inspection of corporate records. The verified Petition alleges in pertinent part s follows. Kreyssler is the owner of 11,490 shares of common stock of CCE out of 38,410 available shares, approximately 30% of the stock. Kreyssler has been deprived access to corporate records by the other shareholder of CCE. On February 8, 2021, pursuant to Corporations Code Sections 1601(a) and (b), Kreyssler made written demand on CCE, through its attorney, Jeff Mayes, Esq. of Radcliff Mayes LLP, to make available for inspection and copying the accounting books and records of CCE, including all financial statements of CCE according to Corporations Code section 114. CCE has failed to comply with Kreyssler’s demand. Kreyssler’s purpose in demanding inspection is reasonably related to her interest as a shareholder in CCE in that since she has been deprived access to CCE’s records and has no ability to monitor how CCE’s resources are being used. Kreyssler is entitled to receive payments and distributions based upon her-shareholder status, but she has not received all of the payments to which she is entitled. Kreyssler has been deprived of any records showing what distributions the other shareholder is receiving. Kreyssler has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law other than the relief sought in this Petition. B. Standard of Review “A writ of mandate may be issued by any court to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting 62 po from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of Ped a right or office to which the party is entitled, and from which the party is unlawfully precluded oA Pot cD ho ' Respondent’s response entitled “Answer”, filed on January 14, 2022, is untimely. Any Bo opposition was due on December 8, 2021 and trial was set for January 18,2022. When Petitioner did not receive an opposition, she filed a notice of non-opposition. The court sua sponte continued the hearing to January 14, 2022 and did not alter the briefing schedule. Respondent also failed to provide a courtesy copy of the opposition in violation of the Presiding Judge’s First Amended General Order. Solely because Respondent does not oppose the Petition, the court has read and considered the response.