Toho-Towa Co. v. Morgan Creek Productions, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the alter ego controlled the litigation because “[t]here was no showing below, and there is not the slightest suggestion in the briefs of appellants, that anyone, other than the alter ego, had control of the litigation....”
• Holdings is solely managed by M. Silva and has no board of directors and no employees
• holding that a court will pierce the corporate veil where there is “such domination of finances, policies and practices that the controlled corporation has, so to speak, no separate mind, will or existence of its own and is but a business conduit for its principal”
• explaining that, “[i]n California, common principles apply regardless of whether the alleged alter ego is based on piercing the corporate veil to attach liability to a shareholder or to hold a corporate liable as part of a single enterprise”
• finding an 15 inequitable result where a defendant shifted liability to its alter ego “after ensuring that [the alter 16 ego] would have no funds to pay its debts”
• “Application of the alter ego doctrine does not depend upon pleading or proof of fraud.” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).