Atelier Constantin Popescu, LLC v. JC Corp., 134 Conn. App. 731 (2012)

Citation: Atelier Constantin Popescu, LLC v. JC Corp., 134 Conn. App. 731 (2012)
Parent Document: Atelier Constantin Popescu, LLC v. JC Corp., 134 Conn. App. 731 (2012)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2012-04-17
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7914567/atelier-constantin-popescu-llc-... ↗

Full Text

1,374 chars

*765The court’s articulation very clearly states that, in reaching its decision to pierce the corporate veil of Tea House, the court applied both the instrumentality rule and the identity rule. The defendants’ suggestion that the court’s findings “are covered by” the instrumentality rule alone finds no support whatsoever in the articulation. To the extent that the defendants do not dispute the court’s finding that the corporate veil of Tea House properly could be pierced under the identity rule, there is an unchallenged ground that supports the court’s decision. “[W]here alternative grounds found by the reviewing court and unchallenged on appeal would support the trial court’s judgment, independent of some challenged ground, the challenged ground that forms the basis of the appeal is moot because the court on appeal could grant no practical relief to the complainant.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Horenian v. Washington, 128 Conn. App. 91, 99, 15 A.3d 1194 (2011). Accordingly, the defendants’ claims under the instrumentality rule are moot. The court’s determination under the identity rule is sufficient to pierce the corporate veil of Tea House and to hold Julie Chen and Hsiao-Wen Chen individually liable to the plaintiff, and we can grant no practical relief to the defendants on their claims under the instrumentality rule. IV PREJUDGMENT INTEREST

Other Sections in This Document (97)

Full Text