This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Scattered (P) sued Chicago (D) in a derivative action. P claimed systematic corruption in D. The board responded to P's complaint by appointing the executive committee and that committee reported back indicating that it had failed to substantiate P's claims and there was no reason to take action upon P's demands regarding the alleged corruption. Ps then filed a derivative lawsuit alleging the corruption. D then filed a motion to dismiss. D's motion was granted under Rule 23.1 in that the complaint did not plead with particularity facts sufficient to create a reasonable doubt that the executive committee has properly refused P's presuit demand. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.