Case Explained: Steven D. Magee Plaintiff— v. Varsity Brands Holding Company, Incorporated; Adam Blumenfeld; Jerry Garcia Defendants—

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Filed: 2026-07-27 The fifth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Steven D. Magee’s civil action involving breach-of-contract and trademark claims, as well as his request to pierce the corporate veil. The court held that under Texas law, specifically Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 21.223(b) and § 21.224, a party may only pierce the corporate veil by demonstrating that the entity was used to perpetrate actual fraud for the direct personal benefit of its owner. The court further ruled that although pro se filings receive liberal construction, Magee failed to preserve his arguments because he did not specifically address or identify errors in the district court’s finding that his allegations of fraud were conclusory, thereby abandoning the challenge. Additionally, the court denied Magee’s request for a writ of mandamus to remand the case to a different geographic forum upon any potential reversal, noting that such relief was conditional on a reversal that did not occur and that the petition regarding the judge’s recusal was not properly before this panel. Consequently, the district court’s judgment stands, and Magee’s motions for remand and stay of appeal are denied. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.