Source: http://massachusettslandlords.com/zimmerman-v-puccio-corporate-veil/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 07:03:51+00:00

Document:
Supreme Court of the United States, sitting by designation.
Grossman LLP were on brief, for appellants.
M. Home, Morris Polich & Purdy LLP, G. Oliver Koppell, John F.
were on brief, for appellees.
violations of CROA, the corporate defendants have not appealed.
the “misleading representation” provision, id. § 1679b(a)(3).
again erred in piercing the corporate veil.
56.1. Zimmerman v. Puccio, 529 F. Supp. 2d 254, 258 n.3 (D. Mass.
purposes of the motion to be admitted by opposing parties.” Id.
admitted the facts in the plaintiffs’ requests for admissions.
for admissions, we do not treat that fact as admitted.
Carreras v. Sajo, Garcia & Partners, 596 F.3d 25, 31 (1st Cir.
entities, their acronyms, location and status.
Consumers. BC Mass was jointly owned by John and Richard Puccio.
issued any trademarks or copyrights at the time of the purchase.
absence of independent representation for Cambridge.
each other and with Cambridge.
opinion, we refer to all iterations of that entity as BC Mass.
The Puccios treated their companies interchangeably.
companies’ corporate credit card bills.
percent monthly fee or twenty-five dollars, whichever was greater.
payments on the account for a set amount of time.
CAMBRIDGE are set forth in this agreement.
up when you apply for future financing.
opinions arising from this action.
the program your credit rating will improve.
for high sales, while low sales volumes were penalized.
eventually faxed a five-page Service Agreement, which he signed.
from its clients’ creditors in exchange for Cambridge’s services.
Management Corp., and First Consumers Credit Management Corp.
September 2002. They filed for bankruptcy in late 2003.
Consumer Protection Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A.
settlement did not release the Puccios or any remaining defendants.
section 501(c)(3) entities. Zimmerman, 409 F.3d at 475-77.
Id. at 478 (emphasis in original).
not “in fact and as a matter of law, operate as a nonprofit.” Id.
complied with any of CROA’s requirements. Id. at 278.
separate cancellation form along with the service agreement. Id.
corporate defendants. They have not appealed that judgment.
judgment on the fraud claim under Section 1679b(a)(4) of CROA.
questions of law, including issues of statutory interpretation.
verdict for the nonmoving party. Cianbro, 596 F.3d at 14.
conclusive.” Torres Vargas, 149 F.3d at 35.
believe that they could repair a consumer’s bad credit history.
credit histories have bilked consumers of millions of dollars . .
reports can be deleted or modified regardless of its accuracy.”).
injurious to the public. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1679b-1679e.
those of a credit repair organization, as defined by CROA.
Accordingly, we turn first to this threshold definitional question.
service described in clause (i) . . .
Zimmerman, 409 F.3d at 475 (quoting Hughes Aircraft Co. v.
Bank, N.A., 370 F.3d 164, 171 (1st Cir. 2004).
credit problems and purporting to improve credit in the future.
steps to improve their credit in the future.
Counseling, 413 F. Supp. 2d 539, 546 (D. Md. 2005).
improve credit scores by relabeling delinquent accounts as current.
relevance of its services to the credit rating of its clients.
Puccios’ liability under Section 1679b(a)(4).
significantly involved in the Puccios’ credit repair business. Id.
their accounts were being wholly serviced by a for-profit.
appears for the first time as a footnote in their reply brief.
1679b(a)(3) veil piercing argument of the Puccios on the merits.
limited liability.” In re Ontos, Inc., 478 F.3d 427, 432 (1st Cir.
v. Multicon Constr. Corp., 574 N.E.2d 395, 400 (Mass. App. Ct.
1991), review denied, 577 N.E.2d 309 (1991).
N.E.2d 259, 264 (Mass. 1937) (quoted in Scott, 881 N.E.2d at 1132).
Att’y Gen. v. M.C.K., Inc., 736 N.E.2d 373, 381 n.19 (Mass. 2000).
of a different Puccio entity.
confronted with a textbook case for lifting the corporate veil.
interests of the individual corporations.
certain with what they [were] dealing.” Evans v. Multicon Constr.
entertainment and costs associated with a yacht.
scheme being carried out by their network of corporations.
under Section 1679b(a)(3) was their veil piercing challenge.
Puccios in their everyday business dealings.
Puccios for violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1679b(a)(3).
Brighton Debt Management Services, Inc.
* For-profit company providing the services offered by Cambridge.

References: § 1679
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1679