Opinion ID: 2675191
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Imputation under Louisiana Law

Text: In Louisiana, courts may impute contacts between two entities under either an alter-ego or agency theory. See, e.g., Admins. of Tulane, 450 F. App’x at 330–33 (noting that imputation may stem from both theories); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13:3201(A) (“A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident, who acts directly or by an agent . . . .”). Because Taishan’s corporate relationship establishes alter-ego imputation under Louisiana law, we need not address the district court’s alternate finding of an agency relationship. See Jackson v. Tanfoglio Giuseppe, S.R.L., 615 F.3d 579, 586 (5th Cir. 2010) (recognizing that contacts can be imputed to alter-egos for the purpose of specific jurisdiction). 23 No. 09-07901 CA 42, at 13–15. 35 Case: 12-31213 Document: 00512636188 Page: 36 Date Filed: 05/20/2014 No. 12-31213 This court has noted that “the alter ego test for attribution of contacts, i.e., personal jurisdiction, is less stringent than that for liability.” Stuart v. Spademan, 772 F.2d 1185, 1198 n.2 (5th Cir. 1985). Under Louisiana law, courts consider a number of factors when determining whether an entity should be considered an alter ego: 1. corporations with identity or substantial identity of ownership, that is, ownership of sufficient stock to give actual working control; 2. common directors or officers; 3. unified administrative control of corporations whose business functions are similar or supplementary; 4. directors and officers of one corporation act independently in the interest of that corporation; 5. corporation financing another corporation; 6. inadequate capitalization (“thin incorporation”); 7. corporation causing the incorporation of another affiliated corporation; 8. corporation paying the salaries and other expenses or losses of another corporation; 9. receiving no business other than that given to it by its affiliated corporations; 10. corporation using the property of another corporation as its own; 11. noncompliance with corporate formalities; 12. common employees; 13. services rendered by the employees of one corporation on behalf of another corporation; 14. common offices; 15. centralized accounting; 16. undocumented transfers of funds between corporations; 17. unclear allocation of profits and losses between corporations; and 18. excessive fragmentation of a single enterprise into separate corporations. Green v. Champion Ins. Co., 577 So. 2d 249, 257–58 (La. Ct. App. 1991). As discussed and considered above, the district court found facts implicating many of these factors. For instance, TG authorized TTP to use TG’s trademark in producing drywall but did not charge TTP for this authorization, TG and TTP did not accurately report their dealings with each other in their financial reports, and some of TTP’s board members did not receive compensation from TTP. See e.g., Green, 577 So. 2d at 258–259. Appellants rely on Jackson, which found imputation improper because “there [was] no evidence of undocumented transfers of funds between various entities,” “no evidence of unclear allocation of profits and losses between corporations,” and 36 Case: 12-31213 Document: 00512636188 Page: 37 Date Filed: 05/20/2014 No. 12-31213 no evidence that the entities paid another entities’ employees. Jackson, 615 F.3d at 587. Jackson is inapposite because of the undocumented transfers between TG and TTP, as well as the evidence that TG paid TTP’s employees; additionally, many of the factors that Jackson recognized as favoring imputation are present here: For instance, the Tanfoglio entities appear to have been operated in a way that their brands and products appear identical and their business relationships are deeply intertwined. The Tanfoglio entities shared office space, phone numbers, and the Tanfoglio siblings were officers and directors of each of the Tanfoglio entities. . . . As well, the Tanfoglio entities were indebted to one another through a variety of business transactions. Id. at 587. Accordingly, TG and TTP are alter egos under Louisiana law, and imputation is proper. Treated as one, each entity’s Louisiana contacts reflect its collective availment of the forum.