Taser International, Inc. v. Phazzer Electronics, Inc.

M.D. Florida

Taser International, Inc. v. Phazzer Electronics, Inc.

DecidedJanuary 9, 2024

Docket6:16-cv-00366

StatusUnknown

This text of Taser International, Inc. v. Phazzer Electronics, Inc. (Taser International, Inc. v. Phazzer Electronics, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Taser International, Inc. v. Phazzer Electronics, Inc., (M.D. Fla. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:16-cv-366-PGB-LHP

PHAZZER ELECTRONICS, INC., STEVEN ABBOUD, PHAZZER IP, LLC and PHAZZER GLOBAL CORPORATION,

Defendants. / ORDER This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff Taser International, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment on its Veil Piercing/Alter Ego Claim Against Defendant Abboud. (Doc. 767 (the “Motion”)). Defendant Abboud failed to respond in opposition, and the time for doing so has expired. The Court has conducted an independent review of Plaintiff’s Motion and finds it well-taken.1 Accordingly, Taser’s partial Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Therefore, it is ORDERED as follows:

1 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). At the summary judgment stage, the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, see Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158–59 (1970), and it may not weigh conflicting evidence to resolve disputed factual issues, see Skop v. City of Atlanta, 485 F.3d 1130, 1140 (11th Cir. 2007). 1. The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 767) is GRANTED; 2. The Court FINDS that there is no genuine dispute of material fact that Defendant Steven Abboud dominated and controlled Phazzer Electronics, Inc., Phazzer Electronics was formed and used for an improper purpose, and the improper use of the corporate form caused injury; and 3. The Court FURTHER FINDS the corporate veil is properly pierced, and Defendant Steven Abboud is personally liable to the same extent as judgment debtor Phazzer Electronics, Inc. DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on January 9, 2024.

/ □□ / s PAUL G. UNITED STATES*DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:16-cv-366-PGB-LHP

PHAZZER ELECTRONICS, INC., STEVEN ABBOUD, PHAZZER IP, LLC and PHAZZER GLOBAL CORPORATION,

Defendants. / ORDER This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff Taser International, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment on its Veil Piercing/Alter Ego Claim Against Defendant Abboud. (Doc. 767 (the “Motion”)). Defendant Abboud failed to respond in opposition, and the time for doing so has expired. The Court has conducted an independent review of Plaintiff’s Motion and finds it well-taken.1 Accordingly, Taser’s partial Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Therefore, it is ORDERED as follows:

1 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). At the summary judgment stage, the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, see Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158–59 (1970), and it may not weigh conflicting evidence to resolve disputed factual issues, see Skop v. City of Atlanta, 485 F.3d 1130, 1140 (11th Cir. 2007). 1. The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 767) is GRANTED; 2. The Court FINDS that there is no genuine dispute of material fact that Defendant Steven Abboud dominated and controlled Phazzer Electronics, Inc., Phazzer Electronics was formed and used for an improper purpose, and the improper use of the corporate form caused injury; and 3. The Court FURTHER FINDS the corporate veil is properly pierced, and Defendant Steven Abboud is personally liable to the same extent as judgment debtor Phazzer Electronics, Inc. DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on January 9, 2024.

/ □□ / s PAUL G. UNITED STATES*DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Taser International, Inc. v. Phazzer Electronics, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taser-international-inc-v-phazzer-electronics-inc-flmd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack