Joelle 98 LLC v. Stone Central LLC
328339
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 22, 2016Background
- Plaintiffs Joelle 98 LLC and Joel Cars Exhibition, Inc. obtained a trial-court judgment against defendants Stone Central LLC and Najib Atisha; appeal followed.
- Defendants appealed two rulings: (1) the trial court’s allowance of a motion to add a party during trial, and (2) the trial court’s order piercing the corporate veil of Stone Central LLC.
- Appellants filed a very short (three-page) brief and provided minimal factual development or legal analysis about the trial court’s reasons for allowing joinder or the factual basis for veil-piercing.
- The concurrence (Judge Murray) agreed with the majority result but emphasized that appellants failed to adequately brief or argue the issues on appeal, effectively abandoning them.
- The concurrence cites established appellate rules requiring appellants to properly develop arguments and cite authorities; absent development, issues may be deemed abandoned.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused its discretion by allowing a motion to add a party during trial | Joelle 98 argued joinder was proper and within trial court discretion | Stone Central argued joinder was untimely, prejudicial, and defendants lacked discovery; appellants provided no developed record-based argument | Affirmed; issue deemed abandoned by appellants for inadequate briefing and lack of factual/legal development |
| Whether the trial court properly pierced Stone Central LLC’s corporate veil | Joelle 98 argued facts supported equitable veil-piercing remedy | Stone Central argued no record support for piercing the veil; appellants offered only conclusory argument | Affirmed; concurrence notes appellants abandoned the issue by failing to cite or analyze the record and law |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheesman v. Williams, 311 Mich. App. 147 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015) (appellant must meaningfully brief issues and provide supporting authority)
- McIntosh v. McIntosh, 282 Mich. App. 471 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (appellant cannot merely announce positions and leave court to construct arguments)
- McKinstrie v. Henry Ford Hospital, 55 Mich. App. 659 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974) (appellate rule: appellant must prime the appellate pump to preserve issues for review)