International American University Business Law Discussion & Paper

Discussion Question:

1. (just need ½ page)In New York City, 2406-12 Amsterdam Associates, LLC, brought an action in a New York state court against Alianza Dominicana and Alianza, LLC, to recover unpaid rent. The plaintiff asserted cause to pierce the corporate veil, alleging that Alianza Dominicana had made promises to pay its rent while discreetly forming Alianza, LLC, to avoid liability for it. According to 2406-12 Amsterdam Associates, LLC, Alianza, LLC, was 90% owned by Alianza Dominicana, had no employees, and had no function but to hide Alianza Dominicana’s assets from its creditors. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim. [2406-12 Amsterdam Associates, LLC v. Alianza, LLC, 136 A.D.3d 512, 25 N.Y.S.3d 167 (1 Dept. 2016)]

?    Assuming that 2406-12 Amsterdam Associates, LLC’s allegations are true, are there sufficient grounds to pierce the corporate veil of Alianza, LLC? Explain your answer and why you believe your answer is correct.

2. (just need ½ page)

?    Which assignments were the most thought-provoking for you? Why?

?    How has your perspective or understanding of legal strategies for business been changed, challenged, reinforced, or deepened? Explain.

?    Review the courses you are enrolled in for the upcoming session. How does what you learned in this course connect with the content to be covered in your upcoming course(s)?

———-Write a paper:In a 4-6 page, APA-formatted paper, address the following:STEP 1 Review the law school case briefs below and select two of the following cases to focus on for your CLA 2 deliverable:Case 1: Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 60 Cal. 4th 474, 177 Cal. Rptr. 3d 539, 333 P.3d 723 (2014)

https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-patterson-v-domino-s-pizza-llc

Case 2: Executive Home Care Franchising, LLC v. Marshall Health Corp., 642 Fed.Appx. 181 (3d Cir. 2016)

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/2:2015cv00760/314513/28/

Case 3: In re Estate of Anderson v. Denny’s Inc., 987 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (D.N.M. 2013)

https://casetext.com/case/estate-of-anderson-v-dennys-inc-1/case-details?PHONE_NUMBER_GROUP=P

Case 4: McDonald’s Corp. v. C.B. Management Co.,13 F.Supp.2d 705 (N.D.Ill. 1998)

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/13/705/2311676/

STEP 2CLA 2 Assignment Instructions:

Compare the two cases of franchise business and legal issues, including comments on the parties being sued, the parties filing suit, the financial damages in each case (distinguish between actual and potential damages if needed), and the ability of the alleged infringing party to make financial restitution.

Summarize each case in your own words.

Use the IRAC structure to identify issues and apply law and facts to the case. The IRAC method has four steps:1. Identify the issue.

2. Relevant law – Here you need to explain the law, not just state it. This could be sections/s of the Corporations Act or case law.

3. Application to the facts – the law is applied to the facts of the problem.4. ConclusionWhat have the cases and this course taught you about franchising and small businesses in relation to business law?