Havlicek v. Coast-to-Coast Analytical Services, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
39 Cal. App. 4th 1844, 46 Cal. Rptr. 2d 696 (1995)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Coast-to-Coast Analytical Services, Inc. (CCAS) (defendant) was incorporated in Delaware but had no other Delaware contacts. CCAS was headquartered in California and did business and employed people there. Mary and Stephen Havlicek (plaintiffs) were two of CCAS’s five directors. After CCAS announced its intent to merge with other companies, the Havliceks, who opposed the merger, demanded access to a broad swath of company documents. CCAS limited the Havliceks’ document access based on its concern that the Havliceks would use CCAS documents to start a competing business. The Havliceks, who unsuccessfully sued to stop the merger, also requested an order allowing them to inspect CCAS’s documents. Per the Havliceks, California law gave them an absolute right to do so. CCAS responded that Delaware law applied because CCAS was incorporated in Delaware and that under Delaware law (1) the Havliceks were entitled to inspect documents only for a purpose reasonably related to their director positions and (2) the Delaware Chancery Court had exclusive jurisdiction to enforce inspection rights. Concluding that Delaware law applied, the trial court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction and denied the Havliceks’ request. The Havliceks appealed. CCAS responded that Delaware law should apply due to the internal-affairs doctrine and the United States Constitution’s Commerce and Full Faith and Credit clauses.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Yegan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.