BUSINESS ENTITIES
12-2-6907 David’s Warehouse Sales Inc. v. A&H Home Style, Inc ., App. Div. (per curiam) (11 pp.) Plaintiff, David’s Warehouse Sales, Inc., specialized in the purchase and resale of overstock items. David Weber was its principal. A&H was a corporation, located in both China and Edison, that imported clothing and bedding from China . Jun Hua Zhang was A&H’s owner and principal. This action asserting claims for breach of contract, conversion, tortious interference with contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, arose out of disputes involving plaintiff’s purchase of leather jackets from A&H. The court entered a $79,520 judgment against the corporate defendant, A&H and, finding cause to pierce the corporate veil, also entered judgment against Zhang individually. Zhang challenged the judgment against her. The panel reversed, finding that it was reversible error for the court to pierce the corporate veil under the facts. Specifically, the court found that the mere fact that Zhang signed a certification without a corporate designation did not establish a failure to observe corporate formality, the evidence reflected that Zhang’s actions were under the control of the corporate entity in China and even Weber testified it was his understanding that Zhang “was basically the representative for a company in China,” and an effort to pierce the corporate veil could not succeed because the proofs failed to show that Zhang used the character of an independent corporation to defeat the ends of justice, perpetrate fraud, accomplish a crime, or otherwise to evade the law.
CIVIL PROCEDURE | DAMAGES
01-07-6908 Nuwave Investment Corp. v. Hyman Beck & Co. (A-81-13; 073551) (9 pp.) The judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Messano’s opinion. The matter requires a new trial on damages in which the jury is properly instructed on the various categories of damages and is informed of the limited role of presumed damages, as described in W.J.A. v. D.A., 210 N.J. 229 (2012).
CRIMINAL LAW
14-2-6909 State v. Muse, App. Div. (per curiam) (8 pp.) Defendant Jahmin Muse appealed from a sentence imposed on a conviction resulting from multiple drug-related charges. Defendant was sentenced as an extended-term offender. Because the sentence was imposed based on an erroneous understanding of the sentencing calculus, in addition to being manifestly excessive, unduly punitive, and a mistaken exercise of discretion, the appellate panel vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing.
