ILNews

Law firm not entitled to summary judgment on complaint seeking payment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Finding that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether an employee was acting on his own behalf or on behalf of his company when he sought a law firm’s services, the Indiana Court of Appeals ordered more proceedings on the firm’s complaint for payment.

In Ruben Pazmino v. Bose McKinney & Evans, LLP, 49A02-1206-CC-499, Bose McKinney & Evans LLP did legal work for Buena Vista Realty Group LLC from February through July 2008 at the request of Ruben Pazmino. The company was administratively dissolved on April 24, 2008. Bose was never paid for its work and filed a lawsuit against Buena Vista and against Pazmino for the services it performed after Buena Vista was dissolved.

Both Pazmino and the firm moved for summary judgment. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Bose and ordered Pazmino to pay total judgment of $11,174.20. On appeal, Pazmino claimed he was only an employee of Buena Vista and not personally liable for the LLC’s obligations. Bose, on the other hand, is trying to hold Pazmino responsible for his own act of personally requesting services after Buena Vista dissolved.

Neither Bose nor Pazmino established as a matter of law that either party was entitled to summary judgment, as Bose hasn’t shown Pazmino secured its services on his own behalf and Pazmino hasn’t shown that he was just an employee and not an interested party in Buena Vista.

The Court of Appeals went on to address additional legal arguments raised by Bose: that Pazmino is personally liable for requesting services not associated with winding up the LLC and that Pazmino was not statutorily authorized to wind up or bind Buena Vista post-dissolution.

The judges held that regardless of the nature of the work performed by Bose, Buena Vista continued to exist as a principal that could be bound by the acts of its agents. They also believed that the reference to personal liability of members in Indiana Code 23-18-9-3(b)(2) is intended to clarify that, even upon dissolution, an LLC, not its members, remains responsible for the LLC’s obligations.

“Thus, where Pazmino acted within the scope of the authority conferred by Buena Vista, Bose’s remedy is with Buena Vista, not Pazmino,” Judge Michael Barnes wrote.

The case is remanded for further proceedings.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT