In Patrick v. Alacer Corp. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 995, a shareholder sued a corporation and its directors for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive trust, injunctive relief, unfair business practices, and declaratory relief. The trial court sustained the corporation's demurrer to the shareholder's entire complaint and the shareholder appealed. (Patrick, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1000-1002.) Applying the foregoing rules, the Court concluded the trial court erred in sustaining the corporation's demurrer to the breach of fiduciary duty, constructive trust, injunctive relief, and unfair business practices claims because they were derivative claims the shareholder brought against the directors on the corporation's behalf. As such, the corporation could not defend against the merits of those claims, and instead was required to remain neutral. (Id. at p. 1008.) But we also concluded the corporation properly could demur to the fraud and declaratory relief causes of action because the plaintiff brought those claims on her own behalf directly against the corporation; they were not derivative claims she brought on the corporation's behalf. (Id. at pp. 1015-1017.) The Court concluded a corporation may not defend against the merits of a derivative cause of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty or other misconduct by its directors or majority shareholders because a derivative claim is brought on the corporation's behalf and benefits the corporation, even though the corporation is named as a nominal defendant. The Court explained that allowing the nominal corporate defendant to defend on the merits would allow the controlling directors or shareholders to shift the cost of defending the derivative claims to the corporation against which the directors or shareholders allegedly committed the tortious conduct. (Id. at pp. 1005-1007.)