"First, it would be better to find cases in the relevant states.
Yep, and if they are there, I'll find them. I just don't want to do a deep search for the sake of this thread.
Second, you realise the case you cited had a piercing argument in the, original, verified complaint along with a naming of the managers."
Let me add something from that link I previously provided.
For alter ego defendants, liability
will hinge first on the alter ego finding
and then on the merit of the underlying
claim. Alternatively, alter ego can be
raised after judgment has been rendered
against a corporate defendant. Under
provisions in the Code of Civil Proce-
dure, upon proper motion a judgment
can be amended to add additional
judgment debtors if it is shown that
the proposed judgment debtors are alter
egos of the original corporate judgment
debtor—and that they controlled the
underlying litigation. (See Cal. Code
Civ. Proc. § 187.) With control of the
litigation established, the alter egos are
deemed to have been “virtually repre-
sented” in the lawsuit (NEC Electronics,
Inc. v. Hurt, 208 Cal. App. 3d 772, 778
...and repost this part:
Generally, some “active defense of the
underlying claim” is required.
(208 Cal.App. 3d at 778.)
If so, one wonders whether a default
judgment that by definition was not
actively defended could ever be amended
to add an alter ego.
On the other hand, if the decision
to take the default judgment emanated
from the alleged alter ego, perhaps the
standard could be met.
Couple this with my experience of having done a reverse-pierce, with proof of only two of the three elements required in Oregon, and it seems possible.
"Third, I hope you're tilting at this windmill for professional practice. A hard case can teach a lot. But, if you're looking for money at the end of the rainbow, I bet you will not find it."
You hope not in vain. I am using this for learning and, since it originated in my home county, it shouldn't be too much of an investment.
I appreciate your time and your wisdom.
Alas, I must be off...Sancho, my steed!!!
Yep, and if they are there, I'll find them. I just don't want to do a deep search for the sake of this thread.
Second, you realise the case you cited had a piercing argument in the, original, verified complaint along with a naming of the managers."
Let me add something from that link I previously provided.
For alter ego defendants, liability
will hinge first on the alter ego finding
and then on the merit of the underlying
claim. Alternatively, alter ego can be
raised after judgment has been rendered
against a corporate defendant. Under
provisions in the Code of Civil Proce-
dure, upon proper motion a judgment
can be amended to add additional
judgment debtors if it is shown that
the proposed judgment debtors are alter
egos of the original corporate judgment
debtor—and that they controlled the
underlying litigation. (See Cal. Code
Civ. Proc. § 187.) With control of the
litigation established, the alter egos are
deemed to have been “virtually repre-
sented” in the lawsuit (NEC Electronics,
Inc. v. Hurt, 208 Cal. App. 3d 772, 778
...and repost this part:
Generally, some “active defense of the
underlying claim” is required.
(208 Cal.App. 3d at 778.)
If so, one wonders whether a default
judgment that by definition was not
actively defended could ever be amended
to add an alter ego.
On the other hand, if the decision
to take the default judgment emanated
from the alleged alter ego, perhaps the
standard could be met.
Couple this with my experience of having done a reverse-pierce, with proof of only two of the three elements required in Oregon, and it seems possible.
"Third, I hope you're tilting at this windmill for professional practice. A hard case can teach a lot. But, if you're looking for money at the end of the rainbow, I bet you will not find it."
You hope not in vain. I am using this for learning and, since it originated in my home county, it shouldn't be too much of an investment.
I appreciate your time and your wisdom.
Alas, I must be off...Sancho, my steed!!!
Last edited: