Shapiro v. Ettenson
New York Supreme Court
2015 WL 5096026 (2015)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
Robert Shapiro (plaintiff), Gabriel Ettenson (defendant), and David Newman (defendant) formed ENS Health, a limited-liability company (LLC), in January 2012. Each member held a one-third ownership interest. Shapiro claimed the three members made an oral agreement that all material decisions would be made by unanimous vote of all three members. No written operating agreement was executed until December 2013. In December 2013, Ettenson and Newman adopted an operating agreement for ENS Health and amended its articles of organization. They did not obtain the consent of Shapiro for the operating agreement. State law permits a majority of members of an LLC to approve company actions. The operating agreement contained provisions that gave a majority of members the power to approve ENS Health actions or decisions. The agreement also provided a provision on capital contributions. In October 2014, Newman and Ettenson reduced Shapiro’s salary to zero and made a call for a capital contribution of $10,000 per member at an ENS Health member meeting. Shapiro filed a declaratory action, seeking nullification of the operating agreement and recovery of damages related to members’ salaries. Ettenson and Newman made counterclaims for declaratory judgment, seeking declarations that the operating agreement, articles of organization, and capital call were valid and binding on all members of ENS Health. Alternatively, Ettenson and Newman sought a declaration that default state LLC rules apply if the operating agreement is invalid. The parties went before the New York Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Neill, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.