Filed 8/13/26 Madera Group Investments v. Casa Madero WeHo CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
MADERA GROUP B350484
INVESTMENTS, LLC,
(Los Angeles County Super.
Plaintiff and Appellant, Ct. No. 24STCP03184)
v.
CASA MADERA WEHO, LLC,
Defendant and
Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Joseph Lipner, Judge. Affirmed.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis, Scott J.
Leipzig, Shauna E. Woods, and Anita Chirnian for Plaintiff and
Appellant.
Greenberg Traurig, Michael R. Hogue, and J. Andrew
Schaffer for Defendant and Respondent.
_________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Madera Group Investments, LLC (Investment Group) is a
member of Casa Madera WeHo, LLC (Casa Madera).1 The
Investment Group asked to inspect and copy records from
Casa Madera under Corporations Code section 17704.10.2 The
Investment Group initially requested 16 categories of documents.
After repeated requests from the Investment Group,
Casa Madera provided copies of some tax returns and other
financial documents.
Dissatisfied with Casa Madera’s response, the Investment
Group filed a petition for writ of mandate alleging Casa Madera
did not produce all documents responsive to the Investment
Group’s inspection requests. The court denied the petition, ruling
that certain of the Investment Group’s requests were beyond the
scope of documents Casa Madera was statutorily required to
provide. The court also ruled that Casa Madera complied with
certain of the requests and that the Investment Group had not
shown Casa Madera was withholding responsive documents. The
Investment Group also sought an order requiring Casa Madera to
produce an additional six categories of documents, a request the
1 A limited liability company “consists of at least two
members who own membership interests. Although the company
has a separate legal existence from its members, the members
actively participate in the management and control of the
company.” (Ontiveros v. Constable (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 259,
273.)
2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Corporations
Code.
2
court denied because the Investment Group had not previously
requested the documents in those categories. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. The Investment Group Requests Documents from
Casa Madera
Casa Madera operates a restaurant in Los Angeles. The
Investment Group is a member of and an investor in Casa
Madera.
In May 2024 the Investment Group requested access to
documents under section 17704.10 (the inspection request) “for
purposes of assessing the value of its membership interest and
the risks associated with its investment” in Casa Madera. The
Investment Group requested 16 categories of documents:
(1) “Any and all contracts and other documents related
to agreements with any other third parties not
specifically referenced herein, which require the use
of [Casa Madera’s] assets, including but not limited
to its facilities, personnel, [food]/beverage supplies, or
other property;
(2) “Any and all contracts, agreements, invoices, receipts,
or other document of any kind related to the rental of
the . . . restaurant to any third party for any private
events during 2023-2024;
(3) “Any and all contracts, invoices, accountings, ledgers,
or other document of any kind related to agreements
with InKind Hospitality, Dorsia, and Capital One
Dining for discounts/rewards redeemable at the Las
Vegas restaurant during 2023-2024;
3
(4) “Any and all documents detailing the revenues
received from the immediately preceding two
categories of contracts/agreements reflecting the fees
or rates charged, the dates of such payments, and the
account(s) into which any revenues were deposited;
(5) “Any and all management, marketing, or consulting
agreements between Casa Madera . . . and Noble 33
Holdings, Noble 33 Management, The Madera Group,
or any other affiliated entity for the management,
marketing, or operations of the . . . restaurant;
(6) “General ledger report for Casa Madera . . . for the
years 2023-2024;
(7) “Any and all financial reports reflecting expenses
incurred for travel, meals, entertainment, and
marketing, and/or any expense reimbursement paid
to any person in relation to the same;
(8) “Any and all consulting contracts with any
consultants located outside of the United States;
(9) “Any and all settlement agreements entered into by
Casa Madera . . . with any third parties and any and
all financial reports reflecting the payments of any
monies pursuant to any settlement agreement;
(10) “Detailed financial reports reflecting the payment of
any compensation, expense reimbursement,
commissions, or other payments of any nature made
to or on behalf of any or all of Madhiar Karamooz,
Noble Ranch, Tosh Berman, Mikey Tahna, Sacha
Tahna, Jessica Nazerenus, Tiki Camaj, Ali Jassmin,
David Silverman, Follow Me Network, any
4
‘OnlyFans’ model, and any individual compensated
for marketing services;
(11) “Complete federal income tax returns for
Casa Madera . . . , including all schedules and
attachments, for the year 2023;
(12) “Current Operating Agreement (as
amended/restated) and Capitalization Table for
Casa Madera;
(13) “A complete list of all past and current employees and
their roles, start dates, and compensation and any
termination dates;
(14) “A complete list of all food and beverage vendors
providing any services or products to the restaurant
for resale in any way;
(15) “A current QuickBooks company backup file or its
equivalent for Casa Madera . . . , including the
administrative username and password; and
(16) “Any and all documents reflecting payments made by
Casa Madera . . . to its managers and/or the
individual members of its managers, and any
employee or independent contractor of its managers,
including but not limited to documents reflecting the
payment date, recipient, payment amount, purpose,
and receipts supporting the purpose and validity of
the underlying expense or claimed service.”
Casa Madera did not initially produce any documents in response
to the inspection request.
On June 7, 2024 the Investment Group sent a letter to
Casa Madera and demanded Casa Madera respond to the
inspection request by June 14, 2024. Casa Madera gave the
5
Investment Group copies of “various business records . . . limited
to tax returns, tax extension forms, various quarterly financial
summaries, and organizational documents.”
On July 3, 2024 the Investment Group wrote to
Casa Madera again and stated that, because Casa Madera failed
to produce documents responsive to 14 of the 16 categories in the
inspection request, Casa Madera’s response was “overwhelmingly
deficient.” The Investment Group demanded Casa Madera
comply with the inspection request no later than July 10, 2024.
Casa Madera did not respond.
B. The Investment Group Files a Petition for Writ of
Mandate Alleging Casa Madera’s Document
Production Was Deficient
In August 2024 Casa Madera filed an action in superior
court against the Investment Group, asserting causes of action
for, among other things, declaratory relief, breach of contract,
defamation, and interference with prospective economic
advantage. The Investment Group filed this writ proceeding in
October 2024 and the operative verified first amended petition for
writ of mandate in December 2024. The Investment Group
alleged Casa Madera refused to provide copies of or access to the
documents the Investment Group requested and asked the court
to order Casa Madera to comply with the inspection request.
In its opening brief in support of the petition the
Investment Group argued that section 17704.10, subdivisions (a)
and (b), authorized it to obtain all records “relating to the
internal affairs of the limited liability company.” The Investment
Group argued Casa Madera failed to provide “key categories of
financial information, including general ledgers, detailed expense
6
reports, balance sheets, and contracts affecting company assets—
core documents necessary for assessing the value and
performance of [the Investment Group’s] investment.” The
Investment Group (inaccurately) represented it had previously
requested 20 categories of documents from Casa Madera. Those
categories included 14 categories from the inspection request
(1-10, 13-16) and six additional categories:
(A) “Books and records of the company for at least four
fiscal years, including revenue, expenses, assets;
liabilities, and balance sheets;
(B) “Financial statements for the last six years;
(C) “Records of capital accounts, profit and loss
allocations, and member contributions and
distributions;
(D) “Internal balance sheets, tax returns, bank
statements, budget forecasts, and quarterly/annual
financial summaries;
(E) “All agreements between [Casa Madera] and its
managers, members, or affiliates affecting financial
obligations or governance; and
(F) “Meeting minutes and consents (critical for oversight
of decision-making).”
In opposition to the petition Casa Madera argued that,
because the Investment Group did not request documents in
categories A through F prior to filing its petition for writ of
mandate, the court should not order Casa Madera to produce
those documents. Casa Madera also argued the Investment
Group requested documents beyond the scope of section 17704.10,
subdivision (b)(1). As relevant here, section 17701.13,
subdivision (d)(7), required Casa Madera to maintain “books and
7
records of the limited liability company as they relate to the
internal affairs of the limited liability company for at least the
current and past four fiscal years.” Casa Madera argued
categories 1-5, 8-10, and 16 related to Casa Madera’s
relationships with third parties (i.e., external affairs), not the
company’s internal affairs. Finally, regarding categories 6 and 7,
Casa Madera stated it fully complied with its disclosure
obligations under section 17704.10.
In its reply brief the Investment Group argued categories
A through F were not “new.” Rather, the Investment Group
maintained, those requests restated or clarified the 16 categories
in the inspection request. The Investment Group also argued
that, because section 17704.10, subdivision (b)(1), authorized a
member to inspect “any record maintained by the limited liability
company,” section 17701.13 did not limit the scope of documents
it could access. Finally, the Investment Group argued
Casa Madera’s “limited disclosure omitted general ledgers,
QuickBooks files, detailed expense reports, related-party
contracts, compensation data, vendor and employee lists, capital
accounts, and governance documents—records central to [the
Investment Group’s] statutory right to inspect.” Shortly before
the hearing on the petition, Casa Madera gave the Investment
Group a general ledger and a profit and loss statement.
C. The Court Denies the Investment Group’s Petition,
and the Investment Group Appeals
The trial court denied the petition for writ of mandate.
First, the court ruled it could not compel Casa Madera to produce
documents in categories A through F. The court stated that
section 17704.10 authorizes a member of a limited liability
8
company to inspect documents “upon reasonable request” and
that the Investment Group did not “request” the documents in
categories A through F before it filed its petition.
Second, the court ruled that most of the categories in the
inspection request exceeded the scope of records that
sections 17704.10 and 17701.13 required Casa Madera to
maintain.3 The court ruled that categories 1 through 5 and
8 through 10 sought documents related to Casa Madera’s
external (rather than internal) affairs, that section 17701.13 did
not require Casa Madera to maintain the documents in categories
13 and 14, and that categories 15 and 16 were overbroad. The
court also rejected the Investment Group’s argument
section 17704.10 authorized it to inspect all documents
maintained by Casa Madera.
Third, regarding categories 6, 7, 11, and 12, the court ruled
that the Investment Group failed to show Casa Madera withheld
responsive documents in its possession. Though the Investment
Group alleged in its petition that Casa Madera failed “‘to produce
. . . the entirety of records identified in the’” inspection request,
the Investment Group failed to offer specific evidence regarding
either the documents Casa Madera produced or the documents
the Investment Group believed Casa Madera withheld.
3 Section 17704.10 grants a member of a limited liability
company the right to inspect certain records the company is
required to maintain. Section 17701.13 lists six specific
categories of documents a limited liability company is required to
maintain and a seventh “catch-all” category: “[t]he books and
records of the limited liability company as they relate to the
internal affairs of the limited liability company for at least the
current and past four years.” (§ 17701.13, subd. (d)(7).)
9
The court denied the petition for writ of mandate on
September 25, 2025. The Investment Group timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review
Traditional mandamus is available to enforce a limited
liability company member’s right of access to company
information under section 17704.10. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1085,
subd. (a) [a writ of mandate may compel a “corporation, board, or
person” to perform “an act which the law specially enjoins”];
§ 17704.10, subd. (f) [“a court of competent jurisdiction may
enforce the duty of making and mailing or delivering the
information and financial statements required by this section”];
Perry v. Stuart (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 472, 487, 499 [court may
issue a writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure
section 1085 to compel production and inspection of documents
under section 17704.10].) “‘To obtain relief, a petitioner must
demonstrate (1) no “plain, speedy, and adequate” alternative
remedy exists [citation]; (2) “a clear, present, . . . ministerial duty
on the part of the respondent’”; and (3) a correlative “‘clear,
present, and beneficial right in the petitioner to the performance
of that duty.”’” (Siskiyou Hospital, Inc. v. County of Siskiyou
(2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 14, 36-37; accord, Jessica M. v.
Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2026)
120 Cal.App.5th 54, 69-70.) “A ministerial duty is an obligation
to perform a specific act in a manner prescribed by law whenever
a given state of facts exists, without regard to any personal
judgment as to the propriety of the act.” (People v. Picklesimer
(2010) 48 Cal.4th 330, 340; accord, Siskiyou Hospital, at p. 37.)
10
The petitioner generally has the burden of proof in a
mandate proceeding under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085.
(American Coatings Assn. v. South Coast Air Quality
Management Dist. (2012) 54 Cal.4th 446, 460; Jessica M. v.
Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, supra,
120 Cal.App.5th at pp. 69-70; City of Marina v. County of
Monterey (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 17, 30.) “‘In reviewing a
judgment granting or denying a writ of mandate petition, . . . [o]n
questions of law, including statutory interpretation, the appellate
court applies a de novo review and makes its own independent
determination.’” (Jessica M., at p. 70; accord, City of Marina, at
p. 30.)
B. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Ruling Certain of the
Investment Group’s Requests Exceeded the Scope of
Section 17704.10
The Investment Group argues the trial court erred in
denying its request for documents in categories 1-5, 8-10, and 16.4
In particular, the Investment Group argues the court erred in
ruling that, because those categories sought contracts and other
information regarding Casa Madera’s relationships with third
parties, they did not relate to Casa Madera’s “internal affairs.”
(§ 17701.13, subd. (d)(7).) The court did not err in interpreting
“internal affairs” to exclude information regarding Casa Madera
and third parties.
The California Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company
Act (§ 17701.01 et seq.; the Act) provides members of a limited
4 As discussed, the Investment Group requested agreements
with third parties regarding the use of Casa Madera’s assets and
the rental of the restaurant, along with an accounting of
11
liability company a limited right to access certain documents the
company must maintain. Under section 17704.10,
subdivision (a), upon the request of a member, for purposes
reasonably related to the interest of that member, a manager
must promptly deliver a copy of the information in
section 17701.13, subdivision (d)(1), (2), and (4), as well as any
written operating agreement of the limited liability company.
Under section 17704.10, subdivision (b)(1), a member, for
purposes reasonably related to the interest of that member, has
the right to inspect and copy “any of the records required to be
maintained pursuant to Section 17701.13.” Section 17701.13
requires the limited liability company to maintain specific types
of documents, including “[t]he books and records of the limited
liability company as they relate to the internal affairs of the
limited liability company for at least the current and past four
fiscal years.” (§ 17701.13, subd. (d)(7).) In other words, under
section 17704.10 a member of a limited liability company may
only inspect the documents listed in section 17701.13,
subdivision (d)(1)-(6), and documents relating to the company’s
“internal affairs.”
The Act does not define “internal affairs,” and the parties
have not cited any California cases interpreting that term as
revenues received (1, 2, 4); agreements with InKind Hospitality,
Dorsia, and Capital One Dining and an accounting of revenues
received (3, 4); management, marketing, and consulting
agreements with certain third parties (5); consulting contracts
and settlement agreements with third parties (8, 9); financial
reports regarding payments made to specific third parties (10);
and information regarding payments from Casa Madera to its
managers, individual members of its managers, and other third
parties (16).
12
used in section 17701.13, subdivision (d)(7). “When we interpret
a statute, [o]ur fundamental task . . . is to determine the
Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the law’s purpose. We first
examine the statutory language, giving it a plain and
commonsense meaning. . . . If the language is clear, courts must
generally follow its plain meaning unless a literal interpretation
would result in absurd consequences the Legislature did not
intend.” (Gutierrez v. Tostado (2025) 18 Cal.5th 222, 231,
internal quotation marks omitted; accord, Clapkin v. Levin (2026)
119 Cal.App.5th 222, 239.) A term’s plain meaning “‘“as
understood by the ordinary person . . . would typically be a
dictionary definition.’”” (People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024,
1035.)
“Internal” in a corporate context means “of, relating to, or
occurring on the inside of an organized structure.” (Merriam-
Webster Dict. Online (2026) <https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/internal> [as of Aug. 13, 2026], archived
at <https://perma.cc/H498-ARJB>.) “Affairs” means “commercial,
professional, public or personal business.” (Merriam-Webster
Dict. Online (2026) <https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/affairs> [as of Aug. 13, 2026], archived at
<https://perma.cc/QJQ8-7VQJ>.) These definitions are consistent
with the trial court’s interpretation of “internal affairs” to exclude
contracts between Casa Madera and third parties. (See Uniform
Limited Liability Company Act, § 104, com. [“‘internal affairs’”
includes “interpretation and enforcement of the operating
agreement, relations among the members as members; relations
between the limited liability company and a member as a
member, relations between a manager-managed limited liability
company and a manager, and relations between a manager of a
13
manager-managed limited liability company and the members as
members”].)
The trial court’s interpretation finds support in a somewhat
related context. “‘Under the internal affairs doctrine, California
courts recognize that the law of the state of incorporation applies
to an action that concerns the “internal affairs” of corporations.
[Citation.] “[I]nternal affairs” are “matters peculiar to the
relationships among or between the corporation and its current
officers, directors, and shareholders.’”” (EpicentRx, Inc. v.
Superior Court (2025) 18 Cal.5th 58, 70, fn. 2; see Edgar v. MITE
Corp. (1982) 457 U.S. 624, 645; Wong v. Restoration Robotics, Inc.
(2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 48, 74-75; see also Kempe v. Ocean Drilling
& Exploration Co. (E.D. La. 1988) 683 F.Supp. 1064, 1073
[“‘internal affairs of a corporation’” is “defined as ‘the relations
inter sese of the corporation, its stockholders, directors, officers,
or agents’”].)
To justify a broader definition of “internal affairs,” the
Investment Group points to section 1602, which grants corporate
directors an “absolute right” to “inspect and copy all corporate
books, records, and documents of every kind.” Section 1602,
however, applies to corporations; it does not expand the
inspection rights of a member of a limited liability company
beyond the scope of section 17704.10. Thus, the Investment
Group’s reliance on section 1602 and cases interpreting it is
misplaced.
The Investment Group also contends section 17704.10
permits it to obtain or inspect any document that might disclose
“actual mismanagement” by Casa Madera. The Investment
Group argues, for example, “the controlling question is whether
petitioners seek records ‘for a purpose reasonably related’ to their
14
membership interests,” suggesting a proper purpose is all that is
required to justify a member’s inspection request. As discussed,
section 17704.10 limits a member’s inspection right to “purposes
reasonably related to the interest” of that member. (§ 17704.10,
subds. (a) & (b).) But that does not mean a member of a limited
liability company can obtain documents beyond those authorized
by sections 17704.10, subdivision (b)(1), and 17701.13. Nor, as
the Investment Group asserts, did the court in Perry v. Stuart,
supra, 111 Cal.App.5th 472 so hold. The court in Perry
considered only whether, on the facts of that case, a member
requested documents for purposes reasonably related to the
member’s interest in the limited liability company, as
section 17704.10 requires. (Perry, at pp. 500-502.)
Citing section 18-305 of the Delaware Limited Liability
Company Act, the Investment Group argues “the appropriate
limitation on a shareholder’s request for documentation should be
that which is ‘necessary and essential’ to achieving a [sic]
‘a purpose related to the member’s interest.’” The analogy is
inapt because the Delaware statute provides a significantly
broader right of access than section 17704.10 does. The Delaware
statute provides a member of a limited liability company the
right to obtain, for example, “[t]rue and full information
regarding the status of the business and financial condition of the
limited liability company” and “[o]ther information regarding the
affairs of the limited liability company as is just and reasonable.”
(Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, § 18-305, subd. (a)(1), (6) (2026).)
15
C. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Ruling the Investment
Group Did Not Prove Casa Madera Withheld
Responsive Documents
The trial court ruled the Investment Group failed to show
Casa Madera withheld documents responsive to categories 6, 7,
11, and 12. As discussed, those categories sought a general
ledger report for Casa Madera for the years 2023-2024; financial
reports reflecting specific categories of expenses, such as travel,
entertainment, and marketing; Casa Madera’s 2023 federal
income tax return; and Casa Madera’s current operating
agreement and capitalization table. Though the Investment
Group alleged in its petition that Casa Madera “failed to produce
the records required by law” and argued in its opening brief
supporting the petition that Casa Madera “made only a limited
and highly selective production—providing tax returns, public
filings, and superficial summaries—while withholding nearly all
internal financial and governance records,” the Investment Group
conceded Casa Madera produced documents responsive to those
four requests: “a general ledger, tax returns, an operating
agreement, a single capitalization table, and a single profit and
loss statement.”
The Investment Group argues that its verified petition was
substantial evidence Casa Madera did not fully respond to the
inspection request and that it was “undisputed” Casa Madera
never provided, as relevant here, “QuickBooks files [and]
complete financial statements.” That is not the point. Because
Casa Madera gave the Investment Group records responsive to
these four requests, the Investment Group, to obtain an order
requiring Casa Madera to produce more, had to provide evidence
Casa Madera had additional, unproduced documents responsive
16
to the requests. The Investment Group submitted no such
evidence. The Investment Group did not lodge the documents it
received to show Casa Madera’s response was evasive or
incomplete, nor did the Investment Group explain why it believed
Casa Madera withheld responsive documents. For example,
though the Investment Group repeatedly asked Casa Madera to
provide its QuickBooks files, the Investment Group did not
submit any evidence Casa Madera used QuickBooks (or its
equivalent) to maintain its financial records.
In the alternative, the Investment Group argues the trial
court erred in requiring it to “prove with evidence” Casa Madera
withheld documents the Investment Group had a right to inspect.
The Investment Group characterizes the court’s demand for
evidence as imposing “an additional evidentiary burden” and
argues “[i]t should, instead, be [Casa Madera’s] responsibility to
assert, as an affirmative defense, that the documents do not
exist, as part of their verified answer.” As discussed, the
Investment Group had the burden of proof in the trial court. (See
American Coatings Assn. v. South Coast Air Quality Management
Dist., supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 460 [“‘[u]nless otherwise provided by
law, “the petitioner always bears the burden of proof in a
mandate proceeding brought under Code of Civil Procedure
section 1085”’”].) It was entirely proper for the court to require
the Investment Group to provide some evidence Casa Madera
withheld documents before issuing an order directing
Casa Madera to disclose additional documents.
17
D. The Trial Court Did Not Err in Ruling the Investment
Group Was Not Entitled to Documents It Did Not
Request
The Investment Group also argues the trial court erred in
denying its request to access documents in categories A, B,
and D. The Investment Group concedes it did not include these
categories in its inspection request. The Investment Group
argues that the requests encompass documents section 17701.13,
subdivision (d)(6) and (7), required Casa Madera to maintain and
that the Investment Group satisfied section 17704.10 because it
“did identify these three document requests in the [first
amended] [p]etition.” The Investment Group is wrong on the law
and the facts.
First, a limited liability company’s disclosure obligation is
triggered by a request from a member. As discussed,
section 17704.10 subdivision (a), provides: “Upon the request of a
member . . . , for purposes reasonably related to the interest of
that person as a member . . . , a manager . . . shall promptly
deliver” the specified documents. (Italics added.) Similarly,
section 17704.10, subdivision (b)(1), states a member “has the
right, upon reasonable request, for purposes reasonably related to
the interest of that person as a member” to inspect and copy
certain documents. (Italics added.) The remedial provisions of
the Act are available only after a manager or managing member
fails to comply with the member’s request.
Second, even if a member could request documents for the
first time in a petition for writ of mandate, the Investment Group
did not make a new request in the petition. The portion of the
writ petition cited by the Investment Group states the inspection
demand “[i]dentified with reasonable particularity documents or
18
categories of documents falling within the scope of categories of
books and records specified in ([Casa Madera’s]) Operating
Agreement and the above referenced statutes including, but not
limited to ‘([Casa Madera’s]) books and records as they relate to
the internal affairs or [sic] the company for at least the current
and past four (4) fiscal years,’ ‘[c]opies of all financials, including
but not limited to, all expenses, all revenue, and assets (i.e.
balance sheet) and all liabilities and liens,’ ‘[c]opies of the
financial statement of ([Casa Madera]), if any, for the six most
recent years,’ and ‘[t]he books and records of ([Casa Madera]) as
they relate to the internal affairs of ([Casa Madera]) for at least
the past four fiscal years.’” (Brackets in original.) It is unclear
what document the Investment Group was quoting in this
paragraph of the petition, but the text appears to (inaccurately)
describe the inspection request. It is not a new request directed
to Casa Madera.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Casa Madera is to recover its
costs on appeal.
SEGAL, J.
We concur:
MARTINEZ, P. J. STONE, J.
19