Paul v. Bathurst, 997 N.W.2d 644

From Oct 2014–Oct 2017 Paul performed improvements, repairs, and later managed Wayback/Stonemeadow Ranch for Robert and Shannon Bathurst, claiming unpaid compensation, expense reimbursements, and other agreed benefits totaling $179,058.51.
Paul alleges two successive agreements: (1) Oct 2014–Apr 2016 (services at customary rates) and (2) Apr 2016–Oct 2017 (biweekly $1,000 management pay), plus unreimbursed expenses, vehicle damage, an Ireland trip, and advance wages to a ranch hand.
Payments to Paul came from Robert’s personal accounts, though she later received 1099s from Stonemeadow Ranch, LLC; Paul alleges the LLC is the Bathursts’ alter ego and seeks to pierce the corporate veil.
Robert and Shannon moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and alternatively under the statute of limitations (arguing SDCL 15-2-15(4)’s two-year limitation for "wages" applies). The circuit court denied failure-to-state but granted dismissal under the two-year statute.
On appeal, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed denial of the failure-to-state dismissal (veil-piercing allegations sufficient at pleading stage) but reversed the statute-of-limitations dismissal and remanded to determine whether Paul was an employee or independent contractor (which controls whether the two-year or six-year limitation applies).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which statute of limitations applies: two-year "wages" limitation (SDCL 15-2-15(4)) or six-year contract limitation (SDCL 15-2-13(1))?	Paul: claims arise from contracts/obligations and are governed by six-year limitations for contract claims.	Bathursts: claims are for "wages" (or liabilities for failure to pay wages), so the two-year limitation applies.	Court: Remanded. Whether two- or six-year period applies depends on factfinder’s determination whether Paul was an employee (two-year for wage claims) or an independent contractor (six-year for contract claims); reimbursement claims that are not wages are not governed by the two-year rule.
Sufficiency of pleadings to hold Robert and Shannon individually liable (pierce LLC veil)?	Paul: alleged alter-ego/veil-piercing facts (undercapitalization, unity of interest, personal payments, representations that Bathursts—not LLC—were the obligated parties).	Bathursts: claims are against Stonemeadow Ranch, LLC; Paul failed to plead facts justifying veil-piercing.	Court: Held pleadings adequate to state a claim to pierce the LLC at the motion-to-dismiss stage; denial of dismissal affirmed.

Sisney v. Best Inc., 754 N.W.2d 804 (S.D. 2008) (on a motion to dismiss, courts accept pleaded facts as true).
Nooney v. StubHub, Inc., 873 N.W.2d 497 (S.D. 2015) (de novo review of failure-to-state claim).
Strassburg v. Citizens State Bank, 581 N.W.2d 510 (S.D. 1998) (statute of limitations questions normally are factual and left to factfinder).
N. Am. Truck & Trailer, Inc. v. M.C.I. Commc’n Servs., Inc., 751 N.W.2d 710 (S.D. 2008) (motion to dismiss tests legal sufficiency, not disputed facts).
Brevet Int’l, Inc. v. Great Plains Luggage Co., 604 N.W.2d 268 (S.D. 2000) (sets six-factor veil-piercing framework).
Kan. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Ross, 521 N.W.2d 107 (S.D. 1994) (discussion of grouping veil-piercing factors).
Kaiser Trucking, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 981 N.W.2d 645 (S.D. 2022) (pleading "short and plain statement" standard).