Santisas v. Goodin

Holding that attorney's fees can be awarded only if provided by contract or authorized by statute

Roddenberry v. Roddenberry

Finding the defendant "concealed the true facts in the hope that the first Mrs. Roddenberry would accept . . . payments and never discover she was receiving only a third."

Greenspan v. LADT, LLC

Holding the two general requirements to pierce the corporate veil are " that there be such unity of interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individual no longer exist and that, if the acts are treated as those of the corporation alone, an inequitable result will follow."

Leek v. Cooper

Holding "allegation that a person owns all of the corporate stock and makes all of the management decisions is insufficient to cause the court to disregard the corporate entity"

Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co.

Holding that where the "gravamen of respondents' cause of action is that the appellants committed actual and constructive fraud by conspiring to breach their fiduciary duties . . . Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision 4 states the applicable statute of limitations"

Katzir's Floor and Home Design v. M-mls.com

Holding "mere fact of sole ownership and control does not eviscerate the separate corporate identity that is the foundation of corporate law," noting, "[e]ven if the sole shareholder is entitled to all of the corporation's profits, and dominated and controlled the corporation, that fact is insufficient by itself to make the shareholder personally liable"

Associated Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Meat Co.

Holding "it is not sufficient to merely show that a creditor will remain unsatisfied if the corporate veil is not pierced, and thus set up such an unhappy circumstance as proof of an 'inequitable result'"

Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Gardner

Holding that inadequate capitalization or concentration of ownership and control should not be relied on too heavily

Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp.

Holding that the rule announced in " Foley is fully retroactive, applying to all cases not yet final as of January 30, 1989, the date the decision in Foley became final."

Virtualmagic Asia, Inc. v. Fil-Cartoons, Inc.

Listing "numerous factors" considered by California courts in determining whether to apply the alter ego doctrine

Section 22000 - Title of division