Diamond v. Platinum Jaxx, Inc.

In Diamond v. Platinum Jaxx, Inc.,[1] the supreme court held that because a plaintiff failed to plead a piercing the veil theory and the individual owners were never joined to the suit or otherwise put on notice, that the plaintiff was correctly precluded from submitting evidence related to piercing the corporate veil. After being assaulted a bar patron sued the his assailant and the bar. The patron wanted to pursue a piercing the veil theory against the bar at trial but was precluded from doing so because, despite sending a letter to the defendant corporation about the piercing the veil theory, the patron had not pled or amended his complaint to include piercing the corporate veil. After winning a 1.85 million dollar judgment against the bar and assailant, allocated on a percentage basis, the patron appealed the pre-trail order that excluded his argument for piecing the corporate veil. On appeal the patron argued that the lower court failed to consider the veil piercing factors in the record. Affirming the lower court, the supreme court reasoned that the correct standard was whether there had been appropriate notice of the veil piercing theory and that the patron had failed to meet that standard. The court further reasoned that while actual notice to the individuals the plaintiff seeks to hold liable under a piercing the veil theory can overcome failure to plead, the patron failed to provide such notice. Affirming the lower court, the supreme court held that because a plaintiff failed to plead a piercing the veil theory and the individual owners were never joined to the suit or otherwise put on notice, that the plaintiff was correctly precluded from submitting evidence related to piercing the corporate veil.

[1] 446 P.3d 341 (Alaska 2019).

Diamond v. Platinum Jaxx, Inc.

In Diamond v. Platinum Jaxx, Inc.,[1] the supreme court held that because a plaintiff failed to plead a piercing the veil theory and the individual owners were never joined to the suit or otherwise put on notice, that the plaintiff was correctly precluded from submitting evidence related to piercing the corporate veil. After being assaulted a bar patron sued the his assailant and the bar. The patron wanted to pursue a piercing the veil theory against the bar at trial but was precluded from doing so because, despite sending a letter to the defendant corporation about the piercing the veil theory, the patron had not pled or amended his complaint to include piercing the corporate veil. After winning a 1.85 million dollar judgment against the bar and assailant, allocated on a percentage basis, the patron appealed the pre-trail order that excluded his argument for piecing the corporate veil. On appeal the patron argued that the lower court failed to consider the veil piercing factors in the record. Affirming the lower court, the supreme court reasoned that the correct standard was whether there had been appropriate notice of the veil piercing theory and that the patron had failed to meet that standard. The court further reasoned that while actual notice to the individuals the plaintiff seeks to hold liable under a piercing the veil theory can overcome failure to plead, the patron failed to provide such notice. Affirming the lower court, the supreme court held that because a plaintiff failed to plead a piercing the veil theory and the individual owners were never joined to the suit or otherwise put on notice, that the plaintiff was correctly precluded from submitting evidence related to piercing the corporate veil.

[1] 446 P.3d 341 (Alaska 2019).