Filed 12/12/13 Kahan v. Carrizo Gorge Railway CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

KEN KAHAN, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. CARRIZO GORGE RAILWAY, INC., Defendant and Respondent. D062526

(Super. Ct. No. 37-2012-00095975- CU-BT-CTL)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Sa n Diego County, Judith F. Hayes, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Michael A. Gardiner a nd Michael A. Gardiner for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Turner & Maasch and Mark A. Ma asch for Defendant and Respondent.2 INTRODUCTION Shareholder Ken Kahan appeals from an order denying his application for a preliminary injunction to enjo in a corporation from implem enting a settlement agreement and from counting votes attribut able to a stock issuance with out prior approval of the outstanding shares. He contends the court e rred in denying his application because he

demonstrated both that the balance of harm s favored granting the in junction and that he had a probability of succeeding on the merits of his claims. We conclude Kahan did not demonstrate a probability of succeeding on the merits of his claims and affirm the trial

court's order.

BACKGROUND 1

Kahan is a shareholder in Carrizo Go rge Railway, Inc. (R ailway). In 2002 Railway obtained the rights to operate over the "Desert Line," a stretch of approximately 70 miles of railroad tracks extending along side the United States-Mexico border from Division to Plaster City. The Desert Line had not been in use "d ue to a series of washouts, tunnel collapses and maintenance issues." However, Ra ilway intended to "reopen the Desert Line by reconstructing th e line to accommodate freight service." The record does not show Railway ev er achieved this objective. On January 5, 2011, Railway entered into an assignment, assumption, and settlement agreement (settleme nt agreement) with Pacifi c Imperial Holdings, LLC

1 Although this case has a co lorful history, we relate only the facts necessary to resolve this appeal.3 (Pacific Holdings), Pacific Imperial Industri es, LLC (Pacific Industries) and Sheila LeMire. The stated purpose of the settlement agreement was to globally resolve existing claims Pacific Holdings had against Railway for defaulted debts secured by Railway's assets as well as potential claims Pacific In dustries and LeMire had against Railway for Railway's breaches of an ancillary agreemen t. Among its provisions, the settlement agreement transferred Railway's right to opera te the Desert Line to Pacific Industries. 2 Pacific Holdings, Railway's then majority shareholder, consented to the settlement agreement and Railway's board of directors approved it. 3 On January 14, 2011, Railway issued a total of 4,825,000 new shares of stock to LeMire and others. Railway's board of di rectors approved the stock issuance. When

Kahan learned of the settlement agreement and the stock issu ance, he filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief and so ught a preliminary injunction enjoining Railway from implementing the settlement agreement and from counting votes

attributable to the stock issuance until Railw ay's shareholders approved these actions. According to Kahan, these actions were i nvalid because a 2007 amendment to Railway's bylaws (2007 amendment) precluded Railway's board of directors from issuing capital

2 Pacific Industries has sin ce transferred the Desert Line operating rights to Pacific Imperial Railroad.

3 In a separate proceeding the same month Railway entered into the settlement agreement, a court determined Pacific Imperial owned 920,000 shares of Railway's stock and controlled another 137,000 shares. At th e time, this was approximately 69 percent of Railway's outstanding stock4 stock or engaging in transactions exceedin g $100,000 or a one-year term without the approval of the outstanding shares. 4 The court denied Kahan's application for a preliminary injunction, finding the balance of harms favored denying the injunc tion. The court also found Kahan was not likely to prevail on the merits of his claims because the 2007 amen dment was ineffective under Corporations Code section 204. 5

DISCUSSION "A trial court must weigh two interrelate d factors when deciding whether to grant a plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction: (1) the likelihood th at the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at tria l, and (2) the relative interi m harm to the parties from the issuance or nonissuance of the injunction, that is, the interim harm the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction is de nied as compared to the harm the defendant is likely to suffer if the preliminary in junction is issued." ( SB Liberty, LLC v. Isla Verde Assn., Inc. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 272, 280.) " 'A trial court may not grant a preliminary injunction, regardless of the balance of interi m harm, unless there is some possibility that the plaintiff would ultimately prevail on th e merits of the claim.' [Citation.]

4 The 2007 amendment provid ed: "Without the approval of the outstanding shares, the Board of Directors shall not take any of th e following actions: [¶ ] (a) issue any shares of capital stock or other securitie s convertible into shares of capital stock; [¶] (b) engage in transactions when the amount involved exceeds one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) or the term of which shall exceed one (1) year."

5 Further statutory references ar e also to the Corporations Code.5 Accordingly, the trial court mu st deny a motion for a preliminary injunction if there is no

reasonable likelihood the movi ng party will prevail on the merits. [Citations.]" ( Ibid. ) We generally review a court's order gr anting or denying an application for a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. ( SB Liberty, LLC v. Isla Verde Assn., Inc. , supra , 217 Cal.App.4th at pp. 280- 281.) However, to the extent the court's order depends on its determination of a questi on of law, we independently review the determination. ( Huong Que, Inc. v. Luu (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 400, 408-409.) In this case, Railway asserts the cour t properly found Kaha n had no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits of hi s claims because the 2007 amendment upon which they were based was ineffective under section 204, subdivision (a)(9). Under this code section, a provision requiring a corporat e action to be approved by the outstanding shares, where such approval is not otherwise required by statute, is not effective unless the provision is expressly included in the artic les of incorporation. (§ 204, subd. (a)(9).) 6 As explained in Assembly legislative comm ittee comments made at the time of section 204's enactment, "Certain provisions are of such a nature (e.g., a requirement that specific corporate acts be approved by the vote of all of the shares or directors, as the case may be) that they ought not to be permitted unless stated in the artic les. If restricted to the articles, the existence of such significant prov isions is more easily determined and their

6 Section 204, subdivision (a)(9), states: "The articles of incorporation may set forth: [¶] (a) Any or all of the following provisions, which shall not be effective unless expressly provided in the articles: [¶] . . . [¶] (9) A provision requiring . . . the approval of the outstanding shares (Section 152) fo r any corporate action, even though not otherwise required by this division."6 adoption or change is subject to the pro cedures for amendment of the articles. Accordingly, [section 204] requires certain sp ecifically enumerated provisions to be

stated in the articles in order to be effectiv e." (Legis. Com. com., 23E West's Ann. Corp. Code (2013), foll. § 204, p. 84; see also § 212, subd. (b)(1) [authorizing corporate bylaws to contain the provisions enumerated in subdiv isions (b), (c), or (d ) of section 204, but not the provisions enumerat ed in subdivision (a)].)

The record does not show and Kahan does not contend Railway's articles of incorporation include the "appro val of the outstanding shares " provisions contained in the 2007 amendment. Rather, Kahan contends section 204, subdivision (a)(9), does not apply to this case because sec tion 1001, subdivision (a), already requires approval of the outstanding shares for transfers of all or s ubstantially all of a corporation's assets. 7 We find Kahan's contention unavailing fo r two reasons. First, the claims in Kahan's complaint are based solely on Ra ilway's failure to co mply with the 2007 amendment. They are not based on Railway 's failure to comply with section 1001, subdivision (a), or any other prov ision of the Corporations Code. 8 Second, the "approval

7 Section 1001, subdivision (a) provides: "A corporation may sell, lease, convey, exchange, transfer, or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of its assets when the principal terms are approved by the board, and, unless the transaction is in the usual and regular course of its business, approved by the outstanding shares (Section 152), either before or after approval by the board and before or after the transaction."

8 At oral argument, Kahan's counsel insist ed Kahan's claims were at least partially based on a violation of section 1001, subd ivision (a). However, when we reviewed Kahan's complaint, we did not find any refere nce to this code section. Although Kahan did reference this code section in some of the other papers he filed below, he did not reference it in the context of asserting a clai m for violation of the code section. Rather,7 of the outstanding shares" provisions in the 2007 amendment are not limited to transfers of all or substantially all of a corporation' s assets. The provisions apply to all stock issuances and to any transac tion exceeding $100,000 or a one-year term. Consequently, section 1001, subdivision (a), does not obvia te the requirement that the provisions be included in Railway's articles of in corporation to be effective.

As Kahan has not demonstrated the 20 07 amendment was effective under section 209, subdivision (a), he has not demonstrated a probability of succeeding on the merits of his claims or that the court erred in denying his application for a preliminary injunction. ( SB Liberty, LLC v. Isla Verde Assn., Inc. , supra , 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 280.) Given our conclusion, we need not address Railway's a lternate contention the 2007 amendment was

ineffective under section 204, subdivision (a)(8). 9 We also need not decide whether the court correctly found the balance of harms favored denying the in junction or Kahan's related evidentiary objections.

as on appeal, he referenced it in the contex t of countering Railway's assertion the 2007 amendment was ineffectual because its provisi ons were not included in the articles of incorporation.

9 Section 204, subdivision (a)(8), states: "The articles of incorporation may set forth: [¶] (a) Any or all of the following provisions, which shall not be effective unless expressly provided in the articles: [¶] . . . [¶] (8) A prov ision conferring upon shareholders the right to determine the consid eration for which shares shall be issued." Kahan contends this section does not apply here because the 2007 amendment did not seek to confer such rights on the shareholders.8 DISPOSITION The order is affirmed. Respond ent is awarded costs on appeal.

M C CONNELL, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O'ROURKE, J.

IRION, J.