Opinion ID: 6487
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: liability of guntur

Text: IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY EDI claims that the district court erred in dismissing the claims against Rao Guntur in his individual capacity. Although both Guntur and SSI were named as defendants, the district court entered judgment against SSI alone and dismissed the personal claims against Guntur because EDI had presented insufficient justification for pierc[ing] the corporate veil. 785 F.Supp. at 585. This holding was erroneous. EDI was not seeking recovery against Guntur in his capacity as the principal owner of SSI, but against Guntur as the individual who first infringed EDI's copyright. Guntur was not acting at the direction of another but initiated the copying for direct personal gain. As this court has 32 recognized in the context of trademark infringement, requiring a piercing of the corporate veil to hold individuals liable would be putting the cart before the horse. Mead Johnson & Co. v. Baby's Formula Service, Inc., 402 F.2d 19, 23 (5th Cir. 1968) (the fact that the persons thus acting are acting for a corporation also, of course, may make the corporation liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. It does not relieve the individuals of their responsibility.). On remand, the district court must apportion damages between Guntur and SSI.