Opinion ID: 2590584
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Excluding Eric Larson Testimony

Text: At trial, Maroun sought to introduce testimony from Eric Larson, his supervisor at Amkor. The purpose of the testimony was to show what Maroun gave up by going to work for Wyreless. Larson was going to testify about Maroun's work at Amkor  his abilities, expertise, projects, salary and benefits. Prior to Larson being called as a witness, Wyreless sought a ruling from the judge excluding the proposed testimony. The district court concluded the testimony was irrelevant because the question of what type of job Maroun left had nothing to do with the question of whether or not it would be unjust for him not to be able to pierce the corporate veil. Relevancy rulings of the trial court are questions of law that are given free review on appeal. Opportunity, L.L.C. v. Ossewarde, 136 Idaho 602, 609, 38 P.3d 1258, 1265 (2002). On appeal, Maroun argues Larson's testimony about what Maroun gave up to join Wyreless was relevant to the shareholder liability claim because it would aid the jury in deciding if not holding the shareholders liable would result in an injustice. To warrant casting aside the legal fiction of distinct corporate existence ... it must ... be shown that there is such a unity of interest and ownership that the individuality of such corporation and such person has ceased; and it must further appear from the facts that the observance of the fiction of separate existence would, under the circumstances, sanction a fraud or promote injustice. Hayhurst v. Boyd, 50 Idaho 752, 761, 300 P. 895, 897 (1931). The injustice element of an alter ego claim relates to whether Maroun might have a judgment against a corporation and be unable to collect on that judgment because of the financial situation of the corporation and the informality of the corporate structure. The question of whether Maroun left a good job in order to join Wyreless has absolutely nothing to do with whether he can pierce the corporate veil. Therefore, the district court did not err in refusing to allow Larson to testify.