BRAYAN A. SAGASTUME MIRLALDA, as Driver, CONCRETE HOLDINGS & SERVICES, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, INC. A/K/A and/or C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C SERVICES ORLANDO, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF TAMPA, LLC, C&C SERVICES GROUP, LLC, and JOSE CANCIO

Plain English (For Everyone)

Imagine you're hurt by a company that's part of a larger group. This case says it's hard to sue the owner personally, even if the companies seem connected. The court looked closely and decided the companies acted separately enough that the owner's personal money is safe, unless you can prove they were really just one big operation with no real boundaries. It's like trying to get into a locked box; you need a very good reason and proof to break it open and reach what's inside.

For Legal Practitioners

This appellate decision reinforces the high bar for piercing the corporate veil in Florida, particularly for LLCs. The court's affirmation of the trial court's finding of separate corporate identities and operations, despite a complex web of related entities, highlights the plaintiff's failure to adequately plead or prove unity of interest and control. Practitioners should note the emphasis on distinct operational activities and financial separation as key factors in resisting veil piercing claims, requiring robust evidence to overcome the presumption of corporate separateness.

For Law Students

This case tests the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, specifically concerning multiple limited liability companies. The appellate court affirmed the denial of piercing, finding the plaintiff did not establish sufficient unity of interest and control to disregard the separate legal identities of the LLCs. This illustrates the general rule that courts are reluctant to pierce the veil, requiring strong evidence of commingling of affairs, lack of corporate formalities, and that the corporation is merely an alter ego of the owner to overcome this presumption.

Newsroom Summary

A Florida appeals court has sided with a company owner, ruling that individuals injured in a car accident cannot hold the owner personally liable for damages. The court found that the various limited liability companies involved operated as distinct entities, making it difficult to 'pierce the corporate veil' and access the owner's personal assets.

Standard of Review

The standard of review is de novo. This means the appellate court reviews the legal issues anew, without deference to the trial court's decision. It applies here because the appeal concerns the interpretation of a statute and the application of legal principles, which are questions of law.

Procedural Posture

This case reached the appellate court on appeal from the trial court's order dismissing the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. The plaintiff, Brayan A. Sagastume Mirlalda, alleged that the defendants, Concrete Holdings & Services, LLC and others, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay him minimum wage and overtime. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding that the plaintiff was an independent contractor, not an employee, and thus not covered by the FLSA. The plaintiff appealed this dismissal.

Burden of Proof

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish that they are an employee covered by the FLSA. The standard is a preponderance of the evidence, meaning they must show it is more likely than not that they meet the definition of an employee.

Legal Tests Applied

Key Legal Definitions

Rule Statements

The determination of whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor under the FLSA is a question of federal law, not state law, and is to be decided by applying the 'economic realities' test.

The 'economic realities' test considers several factors, including the degree of control exerted by the alleged employer, the worker's opportunity for profit or loss, the worker's investment in equipment, the degree of skill required, the permanence of the relationship, and the extent to which the work is an integral part of the employer's business.

Remedies

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Scenario: You are injured in an accident caused by a vehicle owned by a company that appears to be part of a larger corporate group, and you want to sue the ultimate owner of all the companies for damages.

Your Rights: You have the right to sue the company directly responsible for the accident. However, based on this ruling, it will be very difficult to sue the individual owner personally unless you can prove the companies were not truly separate and were essentially just the owner's alter ego.

What To Do: Gather all evidence of the accident and the responsible company's actions. Consult with an attorney experienced in personal injury and corporate law to assess if there is sufficient evidence to argue for piercing the corporate veil, focusing on proof of commingled finances, lack of separate operations, or fraudulent intent.

Is it legal to hold an individual owner personally responsible for the debts or actions of their limited liability companies (LLCs) if they are injured?

Generally, no. LLCs are designed to protect owners from personal liability for business debts and actions. You can only hold an owner personally responsible if you can prove the LLC was not truly a separate entity but rather an 'alter ego' of the owner, meaning there was a unity of interest and control, and maintaining the corporate separateness would lead to injustice.

This ruling is specific to Florida law regarding piercing the corporate veil for LLCs.

For Attorneys representing plaintiffs in personal injury cases involving corporate defendants

This ruling underscores the difficulty in piercing the corporate veil for LLCs in Florida. Plaintiffs' attorneys must present compelling evidence of unity of interest, control, and injustice, demonstrating that the corporate form was misused or disregarded, rather than simply showing a relationship between multiple entities.

For Attorneys representing corporate defendants and their owners

This decision provides strong support for defending against veil-piercing claims by emphasizing the importance of maintaining distinct corporate identities, operations, and finances. Counsel should ensure their clients adhere to corporate formalities to bolster defenses against such attempts.

Q: What is BRAYAN A. SAGASTUME MIRLALDA, as Driver, CONCRETE HOLDINGS & SERVICES, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, INC. A/K/A and/or C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C SERVICES ORLANDO, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF TAMPA, LLC, C&C SERVICES GROUP, LLC, and JOSE CANCIO about?

BRAYAN A. SAGASTUME MIRLALDA, as Driver, CONCRETE HOLDINGS & SERVICES, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, INC. A/K/A and/or C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C SERVICES ORLANDO, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF TAMPA, LLC, C&C SERVICES GROUP, LLC, and JOSE CANCIO is a case decided by Florida District Court of Appeal on February 27, 2026.

Q: What court decided BRAYAN A. SAGASTUME MIRLALDA, as Driver, CONCRETE HOLDINGS & SERVICES, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, INC. A/K/A and/or C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C SERVICES ORLANDO, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF TAMPA, LLC, C&C SERVICES GROUP, LLC, and JOSE CANCIO?

BRAYAN A. SAGASTUME MIRLALDA, as Driver, CONCRETE HOLDINGS & SERVICES, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, INC. A/K/A and/or C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C SERVICES ORLANDO, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF TAMPA, LLC, C&C SERVICES GROUP, LLC, and JOSE CANCIO was decided by the Florida District Court of Appeal, which is part of the FL state court system. This is a state appellate court.

Q: When was BRAYAN A. SAGASTUME MIRLALDA, as Driver, CONCRETE HOLDINGS & SERVICES, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, INC. A/K/A and/or C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C SERVICES ORLANDO, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF TAMPA, LLC, C&C SERVICES GROUP, LLC, and JOSE CANCIO decided?

BRAYAN A. SAGASTUME MIRLALDA, as Driver, CONCRETE HOLDINGS & SERVICES, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, INC. A/K/A and/or C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C SERVICES ORLANDO, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF TAMPA, LLC, C&C SERVICES GROUP, LLC, and JOSE CANCIO was decided on February 27, 2026.

Q: What is the citation for BRAYAN A. SAGASTUME MIRLALDA, as Driver, CONCRETE HOLDINGS & SERVICES, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, INC. A/K/A and/or C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C SERVICES ORLANDO, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF TAMPA, LLC, C&C SERVICES GROUP, LLC, and JOSE CANCIO?

The citation for BRAYAN A. SAGASTUME MIRLALDA, as Driver, CONCRETE HOLDINGS & SERVICES, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, INC. A/K/A and/or C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C SERVICES ORLANDO, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF TAMPA, LLC, C&C SERVICES GROUP, LLC, and JOSE CANCIO is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What is the full case name and who are the main parties involved in the Sagastume Mirlalda case?

The full case name is Brayan A. Sagastume Mirlalda, as Driver, et al. v. Concrete Holdings & Services, LLC, et al. The main parties are Brayan A. Sagastume Mirlalda, the plaintiff injured in the accident, and the various named Concrete Holdings & Services, LLC entities and Jose Cancio, the owner, who were the defendants.

Q: What court decided the Sagastume Mirlalda case, and what was the nature of the dispute?

The case was decided by the Florida District Court of Appeal. The core dispute centered on whether the plaintiff could pierce the corporate veil of several limited liability companies to hold the owner, Jose Cancio, personally liable for damages resulting from a car accident.

Q: When was the appellate court's decision in the Sagastume Mirlalda case issued?

The provided summary does not include the specific date of the appellate court's decision, but it indicates that the appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling.

Q: Where did the accident that led to the Sagastume Mirlalda lawsuit occur?

The summary does not specify the exact location of the accident, but it involves a car accident that led to a lawsuit concerning corporate liability in Florida.

Q: What was the primary legal issue the appellate court addressed in Sagastume Mirlalda?

The primary legal issue was whether the plaintiff, Brayan A. Sagastume Mirlalda, could 'pierce the corporate veil' of the defendant limited liability companies to hold the owner, Jose Cancio, personally liable for the injuries sustained in the car accident.

Q: Is BRAYAN A. SAGASTUME MIRLALDA, as Driver, CONCRETE HOLDINGS & SERVICES, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, INC. A/K/A and/or C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C SERVICES ORLANDO, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF TAMPA, LLC, C&C SERVICES GROUP, LLC, and JOSE CANCIO published?

BRAYAN A. SAGASTUME MIRLALDA, as Driver, CONCRETE HOLDINGS & SERVICES, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, INC. A/K/A and/or C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C SERVICES ORLANDO, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF TAMPA, LLC, C&C SERVICES GROUP, LLC, and JOSE CANCIO is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What was the ruling in BRAYAN A. SAGASTUME MIRLALDA, as Driver, CONCRETE HOLDINGS & SERVICES, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, INC. A/K/A and/or C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C SERVICES ORLANDO, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF TAMPA, LLC, C&C SERVICES GROUP, LLC, and JOSE CANCIO?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in BRAYAN A. SAGASTUME MIRLALDA, as Driver, CONCRETE HOLDINGS & SERVICES, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, INC. A/K/A and/or C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C SERVICES ORLANDO, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF TAMPA, LLC, C&C SERVICES GROUP, LLC, and JOSE CANCIO. Key holdings: The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of piercing the corporate veil because the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant disregarded the separate nature of the corporations and that adherence to the corporate fiction would sanction fraud or promote injustice.; The court found that the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the defendant treated the various LLCs as a single entity or that the defendant commingled personal and corporate funds.; The evidence showed that the defendant maintained separate bank accounts, filed separate tax returns, and conducted business through distinct corporate entities, supporting the conclusion that the corporate forms were respected.; The plaintiff's argument that the defendant's personal guarantee on some corporate debts was evidence of piercing the veil was rejected, as personal guarantees are common business practices and do not inherently negate corporate separateness.; The court reiterated that piercing the corporate veil is an extraordinary remedy that requires a strong showing of fraud, illegality, or injustice, which was not met in this case..

Q: What precedent does BRAYAN A. SAGASTUME MIRLALDA, as Driver, CONCRETE HOLDINGS & SERVICES, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, INC. A/K/A and/or C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C SERVICES ORLANDO, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF TAMPA, LLC, C&C SERVICES GROUP, LLC, and JOSE CANCIO set?

BRAYAN A. SAGASTUME MIRLALDA, as Driver, CONCRETE HOLDINGS & SERVICES, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, INC. A/K/A and/or C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C SERVICES ORLANDO, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF TAMPA, LLC, C&C SERVICES GROUP, LLC, and JOSE CANCIO established the following key holdings: (1) The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of piercing the corporate veil because the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant disregarded the separate nature of the corporations and that adherence to the corporate fiction would sanction fraud or promote injustice. (2) The court found that the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the defendant treated the various LLCs as a single entity or that the defendant commingled personal and corporate funds. (3) The evidence showed that the defendant maintained separate bank accounts, filed separate tax returns, and conducted business through distinct corporate entities, supporting the conclusion that the corporate forms were respected. (4) The plaintiff's argument that the defendant's personal guarantee on some corporate debts was evidence of piercing the veil was rejected, as personal guarantees are common business practices and do not inherently negate corporate separateness. (5) The court reiterated that piercing the corporate veil is an extraordinary remedy that requires a strong showing of fraud, illegality, or injustice, which was not met in this case.

Q: What are the key holdings in BRAYAN A. SAGASTUME MIRLALDA, as Driver, CONCRETE HOLDINGS & SERVICES, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, INC. A/K/A and/or C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C SERVICES ORLANDO, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF TAMPA, LLC, C&C SERVICES GROUP, LLC, and JOSE CANCIO?

1. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of piercing the corporate veil because the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant disregarded the separate nature of the corporations and that adherence to the corporate fiction would sanction fraud or promote injustice. 2. The court found that the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the defendant treated the various LLCs as a single entity or that the defendant commingled personal and corporate funds. 3. The evidence showed that the defendant maintained separate bank accounts, filed separate tax returns, and conducted business through distinct corporate entities, supporting the conclusion that the corporate forms were respected. 4. The plaintiff's argument that the defendant's personal guarantee on some corporate debts was evidence of piercing the veil was rejected, as personal guarantees are common business practices and do not inherently negate corporate separateness. 5. The court reiterated that piercing the corporate veil is an extraordinary remedy that requires a strong showing of fraud, illegality, or injustice, which was not met in this case.

Q: What cases are related to BRAYAN A. SAGASTUME MIRLALDA, as Driver, CONCRETE HOLDINGS & SERVICES, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, INC. A/K/A and/or C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C SERVICES ORLANDO, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF TAMPA, LLC, C&C SERVICES GROUP, LLC, and JOSE CANCIO?

Precedent cases cited or related to BRAYAN A. SAGASTUME MIRLALDA, as Driver, CONCRETE HOLDINGS & SERVICES, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, INC. A/K/A and/or C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C SERVICES ORLANDO, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF TAMPA, LLC, C&C SERVICES GROUP, LLC, and JOSE CANCIO: Russ v. Townsend, 241 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 1970); Dixie Ins. Co. v. Rocamora, 455 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Estate of Smith v. Ceramics, Inc., 957 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).

Q: What is 'piercing the corporate veil' and why was it relevant in Sagastume Mirlalda?

Piercing the corporate veil is a legal doctrine that allows courts to disregard the limited liability protection of a corporation or LLC and hold its owners personally liable. It was relevant because the plaintiff sought to hold Jose Cancio personally responsible for the actions of the companies he owned, despite the companies' separate legal status.

Q: What was the appellate court's holding regarding piercing the corporate veil in this case?

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient unity of interest and control between the defendant companies and their owner, Jose Cancio, to justify piercing the corporate veil.

Q: What specific legal standard or test did the court apply to determine if the corporate veil could be pierced?

The court applied the standard for piercing the corporate veil, which requires a showing that the corporate form was misused and that there was a unity of interest and control such that the separate personalities of the corporation and the owner no longer existed. The plaintiff also needed to show that adherence to the corporate fiction would promote injustice.

Q: What evidence did the plaintiff present to try and pierce the corporate veil, and why was it insufficient?

The summary indicates the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the necessary unity of interest and control. While specific evidence isn't detailed, the court found that the companies maintained separate corporate identities and operations, suggesting the plaintiff's evidence did not meet the high burden required to disregard their separate legal status.

Q: Did the court find that the defendant companies were alter egos of the owner, Jose Cancio?

No, the court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the necessary unity of interest and control to establish that the companies were alter egos of Jose Cancio. The court concluded that the companies maintained their separate corporate identities and operations.

Q: What does it mean that the companies 'maintained separate corporate identities and operations' in the context of this case?

This means that the court found evidence that the companies operated independently, likely with separate bank accounts, records, and decision-making processes, and were not merely extensions of Jose Cancio's personal affairs. This separation is crucial for maintaining limited liability protection.

Q: What was the outcome of the appeal in Sagastume Mirlalda?

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision. This means the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's request to pierce the corporate veil and hold Jose Cancio personally liable was upheld.

Q: What is the burden of proof when trying to pierce the corporate veil?

The burden of proof rests on the party seeking to pierce the corporate veil, in this case, the plaintiff Brayan A. Sagastume Mirlalda. They must present compelling evidence to show that the corporate form was disregarded to such an extent that it would be unjust to uphold its separate legal identity.

Q: What legal principles regarding corporate law were at play in Sagastume Mirlalda?

The core legal principles were the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil, the concept of limited liability for owners of LLCs, and the requirement for demonstrating a unity of interest and control to disregard corporate separateness. The case also touches upon the burden of proof in civil litigation.

Q: How does this ruling affect other businesses with multiple LLCs or corporate structures?

This ruling reinforces the importance of maintaining clear separation between business entities and their owners. Businesses that operate with distinct corporate identities, separate finances, and proper formalities are more likely to retain their limited liability protection.

Q: Who is most affected by the decision in Sagastume Mirlalda?

The primary parties directly affected are Brayan A. Sagastume Mirlalda, who will not be able to recover damages from Jose Cancio personally, and the defendant companies and Jose Cancio, who successfully defended their corporate structures and limited liability.

Q: What practical steps should business owners take after reading about this case?

Business owners should ensure they maintain strict adherence to corporate formalities, such as keeping separate bank accounts, holding regular meetings, maintaining distinct records, and avoiding commingling personal and business funds or assets, to protect their limited liability.

Q: What are the potential financial implications for businesses that do not maintain corporate separateness?

Businesses that fail to maintain corporate separateness risk having their corporate veil pierced, making the owners personally liable for business debts and judgments. This could lead to personal assets being seized to satisfy business liabilities, as the plaintiff attempted in this case.

Q: What does the court's decision imply about the importance of corporate formalities?

The decision strongly implies that maintaining corporate formalities is crucial for preserving limited liability. The fact that the court found the companies maintained separate identities suggests that adherence to these formalities was likely a key factor in the defendants' success.

Q: What happens next for Brayan A. Sagastume Mirlalda after this ruling?

Since the appellate court affirmed the denial of piercing the corporate veil, Brayan A. Sagastume Mirlalda's ability to recover damages from Jose Cancio personally is foreclosed by this ruling. His recovery would be limited to the assets of the defendant LLCs, if any.

Q: Does this case change the law on piercing the corporate veil in Florida?

This case does not appear to change the existing law on piercing the corporate veil in Florida. Instead, it applies the established legal standards and affirms a lower court's decision based on the specific facts presented, reinforcing the difficulty of piercing the veil without strong evidence of unity of interest and control.

Q: How does this ruling compare to other landmark cases on piercing the corporate veil?

While specific comparisons aren't in the summary, this case likely follows the general trend of appellate courts requiring substantial evidence of unity of interest and control, and potential injustice, before piercing the corporate veil. It underscores that simply owning multiple related companies is not enough to lose limited liability.

Q: What was the docket number in BRAYAN A. SAGASTUME MIRLALDA, as Driver, CONCRETE HOLDINGS & SERVICES, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, INC. A/K/A and/or C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C SERVICES ORLANDO, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF TAMPA, LLC, C&C SERVICES GROUP, LLC, and JOSE CANCIO?

The docket number for BRAYAN A. SAGASTUME MIRLALDA, as Driver, CONCRETE HOLDINGS & SERVICES, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, INC. A/K/A and/or C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C SERVICES ORLANDO, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF TAMPA, LLC, C&C SERVICES GROUP, LLC, and JOSE CANCIO is 6D2025-0451. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can BRAYAN A. SAGASTUME MIRLALDA, as Driver, CONCRETE HOLDINGS & SERVICES, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, INC. A/K/A and/or C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C SERVICES ORLANDO, LLC A/K/A and/or D/B/A C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF ORLANDO, C&C CONCRETE PUMPING OF TAMPA, LLC, C&C SERVICES GROUP, LLC, and JOSE CANCIO be appealed?

Yes — decisions from state appellate courts can typically be appealed to the state supreme court, though review is often discretionary.

Q: How did the case reach the Florida District Court of Appeal?

The case reached the appellate court after the trial court ruled against the plaintiff on the issue of piercing the corporate veil. The plaintiff, Brayan A. Sagastume Mirlalda, likely appealed the trial court's decision, arguing that the judge made an error in not allowing the corporate veil to be pierced.

Q: What was the procedural posture of the case when it was before the appellate court?

The procedural posture was an appeal from a final judgment by the trial court. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's decision on the specific legal question of whether to pierce the corporate veil, examining whether the trial court erred in its application of the law to the facts.

Q: Did the appellate court reconsider the evidence presented at trial, or just the legal rulings?

Appellate courts generally review the legal rulings of the trial court and defer to the trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. In this case, the appellate court reviewed whether the trial court correctly applied the legal standard for piercing the corporate veil to the facts it found.