Batchelder v. Kawamoto Appellees' Brief - Greines, Martin, Stein ...

California Corporations Code section 800 governs the question of whether he
can bring claims under California or federal law. (AOB 10.) Not so. Plaintiff
has no claims governed by California law, since he cannot sue on behalf of
American Honda. Plaintiff has no viable federal claim. (Section IV, below.)
Under recent Supreme Court authority, the law of the place of
incorporat-ion ordinarily governs standing for purposes of all claims. In Kamen
v. Kemper Fin. Servs., Znc., 500 U.S. 90, 101, 111 S.Ct. 1711, 1719, 114
L.Ed.2d 152 (1991), for example, the Supreme Court held that the law of the
state of incorporation must be applied in a derivative action arising under a
federal statute to "determine who has the power to control corporate litigation."
See also Burks v. Lasker, 441 U.S. 471, 99 S.Ct. 1831, 60 L.Ed.2d 404 (1979)
a
(law of state of incorporation governs question of authority of independent
directors to terminate derivative action arising under federal statutes).
Accordingly, Japanese law controls the issue of standing here.
• Plaintiff's contrary position entirely relies on cases that pre-date Kamen.
(See AOB 10 n.lO.) Inasmuch as Kamen significantly narrowed the
circumstances under which federal standing requirements can be applied to
federal claims in cases that are otherwise governed by non-federal law,
plaintiffs authorities are suspect. See Country Nat. Bank v. Mayer, 788 F.
Supp. 1136, 1140 n.4 (E.D.Ca1. 1992) (stating that "[iln light of Kamen,"