Under California law, a corporate identity may be disregarded — the ‘corporate veil’ pierced — where an abuse of the corporate privilege justifies holding the equitable ownership of a corporation liable for the actions of the corporation.” See Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Superior Court, 83 Cal. App. 4th 523, 538 (2000). Two conditions must be met before the alter ego doctrine will be invoked. First, there must be such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its equitable owner that the separate personalities of the corporation and the shareholder do not in reality exist. Id. Second, there must be an inequitable result if the acts in question are treated as those of the corporation alone. Id.
Among the factors to be considered when determining to pierce the corporate veil are the following: common ownership, employees, attorneys, and business location between the corporation and alter ego; the failure to maintain separate records, funds, and assets for the corporation and the alter ego; the alter ego’s control of the corporation; the alter ego’s use of the corporation as a shell for conducting a single venture or the alter ego’s affairs; undercapitalization of the corporation; the lack of an arm’s length relationship between the corporation and the alter ego; and the alter ego’s intent to use the corporation to avoid liability. See Associated Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Meat Co., 210 Cal. App. 2d 825, 838-840 (1962).
