FAVILA V. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP Part-II

FAVILA V. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP

















Filed 9/3/10







CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN


>

SANDRA CORRALES FAVILA, as Executor, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP et al. Defendants and Respondents.	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.	B216822 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC399377)

STORY CONTINUE FROM
PART I….









The
Derivative Action

1. >The Estate Has Standing To Maintain a
Derivative Action on Behalf of Motion Graphix

Pursuant to Corporations Code
section 2010, subdivision (a), although dissolved in April 2007, Motion Graphix
continues to exist for the purpose of winding up its affairs, including
prosecuting lawsuits to recover sums due or owing to it or to recover any of
its property. (See Peñasquitos,
Inc. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1180, 1185 (Peñasquitos).) As a shareholder of the dissolved corporation
the Estate is entitled to pursue a derivative action on its behalf, provided
the other requirements for such an action have been satisfied. (See Corp. Code, § 800.)

a. >The law of corporate dissolutions

â€