# Louis Lobato v. Pay Less Drug Stores, Inc., a Corporation Abe B. Cohen, James L. Grady, Charles Finke, and Burt Rosenburg

> Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · November 17, 1958 · 261 F.2d 406

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9446502

## Case

- **Full name:** Louis LOBATO, Appellant, v. PAY LESS DRUG STORES, Inc., a Corporation; Abe B. Cohen, James L. Grady, Charles Pinke, and Burt Rosenburg, Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 17, 1958
- **Citations:** 261 F.2d 406; 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3276
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lewis
- **Judges:** Huxman, Bratton, Lewis
- **Cited by:** 81 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9446502

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that officer or agent status in corporation will not expose one to personal liability but that such status will not shield corporate actors from personal liability for wrongful acts in which they participate
- observing that as a general rule, “if an officer or agent of a corporation directs or participates actively in the commission of a tortious act ..., he is personally liable to a third person for injuries proximately resulting therefrom”
- applying New Mexico law; “[sjpecific direction or sanction of, or active participation or cooperation in, a positively wrongful act of commission or omission which operates to the injury or prejudice of the complaining party is necessary to generate individual liability in dam…
- noting that “the facts stated in the affidavits were not challenged by counter affidavits or other evidence”

## Opinion text

LEWIS, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
The petition for removal here alleged a fraudulent joinder of parties defendant for the specific purpose of defeating removal and pointed up the sham in particularity by allegations that these defendants had nothing whatsoever to do with the acts claimed to be the basis of plaintiff’s cause of action as pleaded in the complaint. By response to the petition, plaintiff denied the allegations of the petition and moved to remand. The trial court then held a hearing upon the issues and ruled favorably to petitioners’ contentions. Such hearing necessarily *410 explored the good faith of plaintiff, a question of fact. The instant record does not show in any way the evidence considered by the trial court and as a consequence we can in no way hold the basis of his ruling to be clearly erroneous and must affirm. To me, the case is as simple as that.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9446502. Public record. Not legal advice.