Taizhou Zhongneng Import & Export Co. v. Koutsobinas, 509 F. App'x 54

Taizhou sued Eurospeed, Euro Group, and Koutsobinas for the full balance due on a scooter purchase order; a default judgment was entered against them on October 4, 2010.
Koutsobinas moved under Rule 60(b) to vacate the default; the district court denied the motion and the appeal followed.
The contract at issue was between Taizhou and Eurospeed; Euro Group and Koutsobinas were not parties to the contract.
Veil-piercing liability under New York law requires domination of the subsidiary and use of that domination to commit a wrong proximately causing injury, with well-pled facts supporting both elements.
Taizhou’s complaint alleged unity of interest and intermingling but failed to plead specific facts showing domination at the time of contract or misuse to cause harm; misrepresentation theories restating the contract claim were not independent torts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused discretion under Rule 60(b).	Taizhou contends relief should be granted for meritorious defense.	Koutsobinas argues no abuse occurred and default should stand.	Yes; the district court erred in denying relief.
Whether Taizhou pled a valid veil-piercing claim against Koutsobinas.	Taizhou asserts domination and misrepresentation elements were pled.	Koutsobinas argues allegations are conclusory and insufficient to reach him.	No; allegations are inadequate to state veil-piercing liability.
Whether Taizhou’s misrepresentation claims support individual liability.	Taizhou maintains officer liability for torts in the course of duties.	Koutsobinas contends misrepresentation relies on the contract, not independent tort.	No; misrepresentation claims are restatements of contract claims and fail as independent torts.

New York v. Green, 420 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2005) (three-factor Rule 60(b) framework governs vacatur of defaults)
State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Inversiones Errazuriz Ltda., 374 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) (strong preference for merits-based resolution; three-factor test)
Finkel v. Romanowicz, 577 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2009) (district court must determine liability as a matter of law pre-default)
De Jesus v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 87 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 1996) (well-pleaded facts required to state veil-piercing claim)
Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Island R.R. Co., 516 N.E.2d 190 (N.Y. 1987) (tort independent of contract requires a duty apart from contract)
City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2011) (default judgment liability depends on sufficiency of pleaded allegations)
Am. Protein Corp. v. AB Volvo, 844 F.2d 56 (2d Cir. 1988) (veil-piercing standards require specific facts, not conclusory assertions)