California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Sheley v. Harrop, 215 Cal.Rptr.3d 606, 9 Cal.App.5th 1147 (Cal. App. 2017):
In order to prove facts sufficient to support a finding of negligence, a plaintiff must show: (1) the defendant had a duty to use due care; (2) the defendant breached that duty; and (3) the breach was the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury. (Hayes v. County of San Diego (2013) 57 Cal.4th 622, 629, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 684, 305 P.3d 252.) Even assuming the fiduciary duty appellants owed to respondent as directors and majority shareholders establishes the existence of a duty owed to her in the context of a negligence cause of action, as respondent acknowledges, her negligence cause of action "mirrors her claim for breach of fiduciary duty." Thus, our analysis of respondent's probability of prevailing on it is the same. Respondent has failed to factually substantiate her allegation that is based on protected activity in the third cause of actionthat appellants were negligent and breached their duties to her "by wrongfully depleting and wasting corporate assets to fund the instant litigation against [respondent] without any reasonable justification." As with her claim for breach of fiduciary duty, respondent has not factually substantiated her contention that the lawsuit against her was frivolous or without any reasonable justification.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.