Lee v. Clinical Research

16 Citing cases

  1. Andretti Sports Marketing Louisiana, LLC v. NOLA Motorsports Host Committee, Inc.

    147 F. Supp. 3d 537 (E.D. La. 2015)   Cited 26 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a plaintiff failed to state a claim for treble damages when plaintiff did "not allege anywhere in its complaint or in any amended complaint that the attorney general has put the defendants on notice of a LUTPA violation, as required by the statute in order to be entitled to treble damages."

    Id. at p. 12 (citing Lee v. Clinical Research Ctr. of Fla., L.C. , 2004–CA–0428 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/17/04); 889 So.2d 317, 322 ; Green v. Champion Ins. , 577 So.2d 249, 257–58 (La.App. 1 Cir.1991) ). NOLA Motor and Chouest assert that Andretti has pled “precious few” of the 18 factors that would support the application of that theory.

  2. Miller v. Entergy Serv.

    913 So. 2d 143 (La. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 7 times
    Rejecting defendants' argument that single-business-entity theory was unnecessary because one of the defendants was solvent and finding there was a factual dispute as to whether a single business enterprise existed

    Green, 577 So.2d at 258. In determining whether a corporation and its subsidiaries can be classified as a single business entity, this Court, in Lee v. Clinical Research Center of Florida, 04-0428, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/17/04), 889 So.2d 317, 322 citing Green v. Champion Insurance Company, 577 So.2d at 257-258, discussed the list of possible factors addressed by the First Circuit, which may be considered to either support or refute a party's argument regarding existence of a single business entity. However, the list enumerated in Green, 577 So.2d at 257-258, and discussed by this Court in Lee, 889 So.2d at 322, was not intended to be an exhaustive list of factors the courts should consider in determining whether a corporation and its subsidiaries can be classified as a single business entity.

  3. Scheffy v. Lyons

    Civil Action 23-565 (E.D. La. Feb. 28, 2024)

    “[T]he legal fiction that a corporation is a distinct legal entity separate from the individuals who comprise it may be disregarded when a corporation is organized and controlled in such a way that it is merely an adjunct of another corporation.” Lee v. Clinical Rsch. Ctr. Of Fla., L.C., 20040428 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/17/04), 889 So.2d 317, 323, writ denied, 2004-3002 (La. 2/18/05), 896 So.2d 33. “The ‘single business enterprise' doctrine is essentially a theory for imposing liability where two or more business entities act as one.”

  4. Becnel v. Lamorak Ins. Co.

    Civil Action 19-14536 (E.D. La. Jun. 8, 2022)

    When a group of affiliated corporations constitutes a single business enterprise, a court may “disregard the concept of corporate separateness and extend liability to each of the affiliated corporations” for the purpose of preventing fraud or achieving equity. Lee v. Clinical Research Ctr., 04-0428 (La.App. 4th Cir.11/17/04), 889 So.2d 317, 323; In re Ark-La-Tex Timber Co., Inc., 482 F.3d 319, 335 (5th Cir. 2007). This theory of veil piercing is called the “single business entity, ” and it occurs when a corporation is found to be the “alter ego, agent, tool or instrumentality of another corporation.

  5. Hannon v. F. Miller Props., LLC

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-304-JWD-EWD (M.D. La. Jul. 11, 2018)

    Id. at 259. See also Lee v. Clinical Research Ctr. of Fla., L.C., 2004-0428 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/17/04), 889 So.2d 317, 323, writ denied, 2004-3002 (La. 2/18/05), 896 So.2d 33, 2005 WL 731067, citing Brown v. Automotive Cas. Ins. Co., 93-2169 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/7/94), 644 So.2d 723, 727 (citations omitted) (explaining that "[w]hen a group of corporations integrate their resources to achieve a common business purpose and do not operate as separate entities, each affiliated corporation may be held liable for debts incurred in pursuit of the general business purpose.") Plaintiffs' Arguments

  6. Nussli US, LLC v. Nola Motorsports Host Comm., Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-2167 SECTION "G"(3) (E.D. La. Jul. 29, 2016)

    Id. at pp. 5-6 (citing No. 2004-CA-0428 (La. App. 4 Cir. 11/17/04); 889 So. 2d 317, 323). Third, the Chouest Defendants contend that NUSSLI has not pled sufficient facts to support an application of the alter ego doctrine.

  7. Bona Fide Demolition & Recovery, LLC v. Crosby Construction Co. of Louisiana, Inc.

    690 F. Supp. 2d 435 (E.D. La. 2010)   Cited 21 times
    Noting that "[c]orporations function as distinct legal entities, separate from the individuals who own them, and their shareholders are not generally liable for the debts of the corporation"

    It is also a "vehicle for holding a group of affiliated entities responsible for the obligations of one of the entities." Lee v. Clinical Research Center of Florida, L.C., 889 So.2d 317, 323 (La.App.Ct. 2004). "When a group of corporations integrate their resources to achieve a common business purpose and do not operate as separate entities, each affiliated corporation may be held liable for debts incurred in pursuit of the general business purpose."

  8. In re Ark-La-Tex Timber

    482 F.3d 319 (5th Cir. 2007)   Cited 224 times
    Listing the elements as " a representation by conduct or word; made in such a manner that the promisor should have expected the promisee to rely upon it; justifiable reliance by the promisee; and a change in position to the promisee's detriment because of the reliance" (citing Suire , 907 So.2d at 59 )

    Smith v. Cotton's Fleet Serv., Inc., 500 So.2d 759, 762 (La. 1987); see also 1 Fletcher Cyc. Corp. § 41. Likewise, when a group of affiliated corporations constitutes a single business enterprise, a court may "disregard the concept of corporate separateness and extend liability to each of the affiliated corporations" for the purpose of preventing fraud or achieving equity. Brown v. Auto. Cas. Ins. Co., 93-2169 (La.App. 1st Cir. 10/7/94), 644 So.2d 723, 727; Lee v. Clinical Research Ctr., 04-0428 (La.App. 4th Cir. 11/17/04), 889 So.2d 317, 323; see also 1 Fletcher Cyc. Corp. § 41.30. These justifications for disregarding a corporate entity are not alleged or relied upon in the instant case.

  9. People State Bank v. General Electrical Capital Corp.

    477 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 2007)   Cited 2 times

    Likewise, when a group of affiliated corporations constitutes a single business enterprise, a court may "disregard the concept of corporate separateness and extend liability to each of the affiliated corporations" for the purpose of preventing fraud or achieving equity. Brown v. Auto. Cas. Ins. Co., 93-2169 (La.App. 1st Cir. 10/7/94), 644 So.2d 723, 727 (1994); Lee v. Clinical Research Ctr., 04-0428 (La.App. 4th Cir. 11/17/04), 889 So.2d 317, 323 (2004); see also 1 Fletcher Cyc. Corp. § 41.30. These justifications for disregarding a corporate entity are not alleged or relied upon in the instant case.

  10. Lloyd's Syndicate 457 v. Am. Glob. Mar. Inc.

    346 F. Supp. 3d 908 (S.D. Tex. 2018)   Cited 7 times

    "Likewise, when a group of affiliated corporations constitutes a single business enterprise, a court may ‘disregard the concept of corporate separateness and extend liability to each of the affiliated corporations’ for the purpose of preventing fraud or achieving equity." In re Ark-La-Tex Timber Co., Inc. , 482 F.3d 319, 335 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Brown v. Auto. Cas. Ins. Co. , 644 So.2d 723, 727 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1994) ; Lee v. Clinical Research Ctr. of Fla., L.C. , 889 So.2d 317, 323 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2004) ); seeBona Fide Demolition & Recovery, LLC v. Crosby Constr. Co. of La., Inc. , 690 F.Supp.2d 435, 443–44 (E.D. La. 2010).