TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC.
v.
PHAZZER ELECTRONICS, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Taser International moved for summary judgment on its veil piercing/alter ego claim against defendant Steven Abboud. The court granted the motion, finding that Abboud dominated and controlled Phazzer Electronics, Inc., which was formed for an improper purpose, warranting piercing of the corporate veil and imposing personal liability on Abboud.
The court granted summary judgment for Taser on its veil piercing claim. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact that Abboud dominated and controlled Phazzer Electronics, the corporation was formed for an improper purpose, and this misuse caused injury. Accordingly, the corporate veil was pierced and Abboud is personally liable to the same extent as Phazzer Electronics.
[1] Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
[2] A court must view evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party at the summary judgment stage.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTaser International filed suit against Phazzer Electronics, Inc., Steven Abboud, Phazzer IP, LLC, and Phazzer Global Corporation. Abboud failed to res…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Corporate Form cases and more on FLexlaw
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.¹ Accordingly, Taser's partial Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
Therefore, it is ORDERED as follows:
¹ 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).
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 in Orlando, Florida on January 9, 2024.
PAUL G. BYRON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986)
- Skop v. City OF Atlanta, 485 F.3d 1130 (11th Cir. 2007)