Fear Not Law Articles: Buchanan v. United Independent Taxi Drivers

Buchanan v

Buchanan v. United Independent Taxi Drivers

Filed 2/6/07 Buchanan v. United Independent Taxi Drivers CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

OLIVER BUCHANAN et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

UNITED INDEPENDENT TAXI DRIVERS, INC., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

B189261

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BS098813)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David Yaffe, Judge. Judgment is reversed and remanded with directions.

Law offices of B. Kwaku Duren and B. Kwaku Duren; Colin J. Gibson for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Neil C. Evans for Defendants and Respondents.

______________________________________________

This is a suit for traditional mandamus relief. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1085.) The petitioners seek to compel a corporation, and three of its officers, to permit them to inspect and copy corporate books, records and documents. Five of the petitioners are members of the corporation.

The petitioners are Oliver Buchanan, Yousuf Abuikadie, Abdullahi Mohammad, Fanta Tilahuni, Tamirat A. Chilot, and the United Independent Taxi Drivers Association (the Association). The Association is identified in the petition as an unincorporated association of member-drivers/shareholders of United Independent Taxi Drivers, Inc. (the Corporation).[1] The respondents are the Corporation, and Martin Shatakhyan, Arthur Taylor, and Melese Adamu, who are its president, secretary and treasurer, respectively.

At the hearing on the petition, the court indicated it would grant the requested inspection, and if the Corporation did not wish to segregate out the specific records that the petitioners seek to inspect, the Corporation could simply make all of its documents available for inspection and the petitioners could segregate the ones they want, since â€

Description	This is a suit for traditional mandamus relief. (Code Civ. Proc. S 1085.) The petitioners seek to compel a corporation, and three of its officers, to permit them to inspect and copy corporate books, records and documents. Five of the petitioners are members of the corporation. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded. The trial court is directed to vacate the writ, to reconsider and rule on petitioners' request for attorney's fees (including attorney's fees incurred by petitioners in this appeal), and to file a new and different writ and a new and different judgment, all consistent with the views expressed herein. Costs on appeal to petitioners.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.