Document Type
Article
Publication Date
8-7-1997
Abstract
Defendant-appellant Jason Glazier appeals from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Kaplan, J.) to the extent that the judgment compels him to arbitrate the claims made against him by plaintiff-appellee-cross-appellant Daniel Freeman. The claims were asserted under the provisions of a contract between Freeman and defendant Complex Computing Company, Inc. ("C3"). The court found that, although Glazier was neither an employee, officer, director, nor shareholder of C3, his control and dominion over C3 warranted the piercing of the corporate veil in order to impose personal liability upon him. Freeman cross-appeals from so much of the judgment as denies his motion to compel arbitration of his claims against defendant Thomson Trading Services, Inc. ("Thomson"), a corporation that purchased the assets of C3, stays his claims against Thomson pending the final determination of the arbitration as to Glazier and C3, and places on the suspense docket those matters not otherwise disposed of by the district court's judgment.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
Recommended Citation
Miner '56, Roger J., "Freeman v. Complex Computing Co., Inc., 119 F. 3d 1044 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1997" (1997). Circuit Court Opinions. 205.
https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/circuit_opinions/205
Comments
119 F.3d 1044 (1997)
Daniel FREEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant,
v.
COMPLEX COMPUTING COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Jason Glazier, Defendant-Appellant, Thomson Trading Services, Inc., Defendant-Cross-Appellee.
Nos. 931, 1133, Dockets 96-7850, 96-7870.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued March 24, 1997.
Decided August 7, 1997.
New York Law School location: File #2510, Box #137