SDSOL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
v.
STARDAM LLC

Fla. 3d DCA | 2023-12-13
No. 2022-2138
314 So. 3d 656 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2023) Caution
Cited by 11 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

A claim to pierce the corporate veil must allege both that the corporation is the mere instrumentality of its owner and that the owner engaged in improper conduct, and fraud claims must be pleaded with specificity identifying who made false statements, their substance, timing, and context.

Headnotes

[1] A claim to pierce the corporate veil requires allegations establishing both that the corporation is the mere instrumentality of its owner and that the owner engaged in im…

[2] Fraud claims, including fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation, must be pleaded with specificity identifying who made the false statement, the statement's…

Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Key Quotes

“a claim to pierce the corporate veil must contain allegations demonstrating both how the corporation is the mere instrumentality of the corporation's primary owner and how the primary owner engaged in improper conduct in the use of the corporation”

Court's statement of the legal standard for piercing the corporate veil
Facts & Procedural History

SDSol entered into an express contract with Stardam, a Florida LLC. SDSol sued Knapp, one of Stardam's two individual owners, as a third-party defenda…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Topics
Pleading Fraud With Particularity Piercing The Corporate Veil Negligent Misrepresentation Fraudulent Inducement

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pleading Fraud With Particularity cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 13, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-2138 Lower Tribunal No. 16-24253

________________

SDSol Technologies, LLC,

Appellant,

vs.

Stardam, LLC,

Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Carlos Guzman, Judge. Florida Appeals, and Erin Pogue Newell (Orlando), for appellant. Leto Law Firm, and Matthew P. Leto and Charles P. Gourlis, for appellee. Before SCALES, HENDON and BOKOR, JJ. SCALES, J. In this breach of contract action between two corporate entities, Stardam, LLC (“Stardam”) and SDSol Technologies, LLC (“SDSol”),1 appellant SDSol is the third-party plaintiff suing the third-party defendant, appellee Mario Knapp. SDSol is seeking to hold Knapp – one of two individuals who own Stardam, a Florida limited liability company – individually liable for Stardam’s alleged breach of an express contract. SDSol appeals a February 28, 2023 final judgment dismissing, with prejudice, its third-party claims against Knapp (i) to pierce Stardam’s corporate veil (alleged in SDSol’s third amended third-party complaint) and (ii) for fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation (alleged in SDSol’s fourth amended third-party complaint).2 Kingston, 314 So. 3d 656, 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (recognizing that a claim to pierce the corporate veil must contain allegations demonstrating both how the corporation is the mere

Footnotes
1 In the lower court proceedings, Stardam is the plaintiff/counter-defendant and SDSol is the defendant/counter-plaintiff. 2 SDSol does not appeal the dismissal of its claims against Knapp alleging tortious interference and civil conspiracy. instrumentality of the corporation’s primary owner and how the primary owner engaged in improper conduct in the use of the corporation); Abdo v. Abdo, 263 So. 3d 141, 150 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (same). Similarly, SDSol’s claims for fraudulent inducement and negligent misrepresentation that are alleged in SDSol’s fourth amended third-party complaint are merely restatements of its piercing the corporate veil claim, and allege no actionable, specific, false statements by Knapp upon which SDSol detrimentally relied. See Eagletech Commc’ns, Inc. v. Bryn Mawr Inv. Grp., 79 So. 3d 855, 862 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (recognizing that a claim for fraudulent inducement “must allege fraud with the requisite particularity required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.120(b), including who made the false statement, the substance of the false statement, the time frame in which it was made and the context in which the statement was made” (quoting Bankers Mut. Cap. Corp. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 784 So. 2d 485, 490 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001))); Morgan v. W.R. Grace & Co.—Conn., 779 So. 2d 503, 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (acknowledging that “the requirement that fraud be pleaded with specificity also applies to claims for negligent misrepresentation”). Finally, as to SDSol’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing its fourth amended third-party complaint with prejudice, without further leave to amend, we note that, “as an action progresses, the privilege of amendment progressively decreases to the point that the trial judge does not abuse his discretion in dismissing with prejudice.” Kohn v. City of Miami Beach, 611 So. 2d 538, 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). We find no abuse of discretion in this instance, where, after more than six years of protracted litigation in this ordinary breach of contract case, SDSol was unable to adequately plead a cause of action seeking to hold individually liable an owner of the corporate entity with which it entered an express contract. Affirmed.
2 We affirm because SDSol’s third amended third-party complaint does not contain allegations sufficient to state a cause of action to pierce Stardam’s corporate veil so as to hold Knapp individually liable for Stardam’s alleged breach of contract. See Parisi v.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (11 total)

  • SDSol Techs., LLC v. Stardam LLC, 314 So. 3d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
    …’s third amended third-party complaint does not contain allegations sufficient to state a cause of action to pierce Stardam’s corporate veil so as to hold Knapp individually liable for Stardam’s alleged breach of contract. See Parisi v. Kingston, 314 So. 3d 656, 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (recognizing that a claim to pierce the corporate veil must contain allegations demonstrating both how the corporation is the mere 1 In the lower court proceedings, Stardam is the plaintiff/counter-defendant and SDSol is t…
  • Steinmetz v. Pickholtz, 414 So. 3d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
  • Proampac Holdings, Inc. v. Rcba Nutraceuticals, LLC (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)
    …sfied in order to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant.” Estes v. Rodin, 259 So. 3d 183, 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). However, if the complaint fails to meet the first part of the test, the inquiry ends. See Parisi v. Kingston, 314 So. 3d 656, 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (noting “Venetian Salami’s burden shifting analysis is triggered, and the parties’ competing affidavits become relevant, only when the operative pleading adequately alleges a basis for extending long-arm jurisdiction over…

Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw