Opinion
6:16-cv-366-PGB-LHP
01-09-2024
TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. PHAZZER ELECTRONICS, INC., STEVEN ABBOUD, PHAZZER IP, LLC and PHAZZER GLOBAL CORPORATION, Defendants.
ORDER
PAUL G. BYRON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff Taser International, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment on its Veil Piercing/Alter Ego Claim Against Defendant Abboud. (Doc. 767 (the “Motion”)). Defendant Abboud failed to respond in opposition, and the time for doing so has expired. The Court has conducted an independent review of Plaintiff's Motion and finds it well-taken. Accordingly, Taser's partial Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). At the summary judgment stage, the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, see Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59 (1970), and it may not weigh conflicting evidence to resolve disputed factual issues, see Skop v. City of Atlanta, 485 F.3d 1130, 1140 (11th Cir. 2007).
Therefore, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 767) is GRANTED;
2. The Court FINDS that there is no genuine dispute of material fact that Defendant Steven Abboud dominated and controlled Phazzer Electronics, Inc., Phazzer Electronics was formed and used for an improper purpose, and the improper use of the corporate form caused injury; and
3. The Court FURTHER FINDS the corporate veil is properly pierced, and Defendant Steven Abboud is personally liable to the same extent as judgment debtor Phazzer Electronics, Inc.
DONE AND ORDERED.