> >
Case Name | Leek v. Cooper | |
---|---|---|
Date | 04/15/2011 | |
Note | Although several plaintiff employees of a sole shareholder's auto sales business could not show that he was an alter ego of his corporation, he still could be personally liable for their Fair Employment and Housing Act claims if the plaintiffs prevail and his corporation cannot pay the judgment. | |
Citation | C061510 | |
WCC Citation | WCC 37482011 CA |
DONNA LEEK et al. , Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. JAY COOPER, Defendant and Respondent. The plaintiffs responded to the summary judgment motion, arguing that Cooper was the alter ego of Auburn Honda on the apparent theory that Cooper was their employer. They pointed to evidence that Cooper was the president of Auburn Honda, and that there were no directors of the corporation, that Cooper "individually" fired the plaintiffs, that Cooper "individually" makes all policy, procedure, and management decisions for Auburn Honda, that Cooper "individually" owns the land on which the dealership is located, and that he raises the rent as he sees fit. Instead, they argue that Cooper was in fact the employer because of the control he exercised over them. In fact, plaintiffs pleaded that Cooper was their employer. 2 Defendant's summary judgment motion adduced facts showing that plaintiffs were employed by Auburn Honda, rather than Cooper.
Download full case here.
Download full case here.