Under FRCivP 23.1, a derivative action may be maintained only by a plaintiff stockholder that can adequately and fairly represent similarly situated stockholders. In Larson v. Dumke (9th Cir. 1990) 900 F.2d 1363, the court listed eight factors that a district court could consider in deciding whether the plaintiff was an adequate representative. However, a district court need not consider all eight of those factors, and it may consider other factors as well. Here, the plaintiff not only owned stock in the corporation but had also owned a loan secured by the corporation’s IP. The corporation had defaulted on the loan, resulting in years of litigation between plaintiff and the corporation, in much of which plaintiff tried to gain control over the IP. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the plaintiff was inadequate as the other pending litigation would distract it from pursuing other stockholders’ interests in the derivative suit. Other stockholders opposed the suit, and it appeared mainly intended to further plaintiff’s efforts to acquire the corporation’s IP.