Party lacked standing to pursue action on behalf of appellant for injunction

To access case, press here

UNPUBLISHED

This is an appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of a complaint filed on behalf of Duneland Sand, Inc. (Duneland Sand) and Duneland Properties, LLC (Duneland Properties) (collectively, Plaintiff Corporations) against Kevin Misch and Duneland Sand Enterprises (Duneland Enterprises) (collectively, Defendants). Two issues are presented for our review:

(1) Did the trial court err in concluding that Jerry Lambert lacked standing to pursue the instant action on behalf of Plaintiff Corporations?; and (2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying a motion to join an indispensable party and a subsequent motion to substitute a party filed on behalf of Plaintiff Corporations?

Conclusion (slip op. at 11, 12): We agree with the trial court that Lambert no longer had any interest in the Plaintiff Corporations, and therefore, Lambert did not have standing to pursue the action on behalf of Plaintiff Corporations . . . We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for joinder or the motion for substitution. Judgment affirmed.

Key Analysis (slip op. at 10-11): Lambert cannot wrongfully retain the stocks and units of Plaintiff Corporations and then use the same to assert standing on behalf of the Plaintiff Corporations. Moreover, under the terms of the option, it is clear that the parties intended for the option to be complete upon the creation of a successor entity to hold the assets excluded from the sale of the stock and units.