Using thr IRAC method

Charles Honeybee was the sole member of Creative Works, LLC$,$ a construction company. Maria Pinella hired Creative Works to build a house. Pinella claimed that Honeybee altered the building plans without her consent and made requests for additional payments amounting to $$20,000$ that were not in the contract. Honeybee eventually quit working before the house was finished, forcing Pinella to hire another company to repair the many construction flaws that he had left behind.

Pinella sued Creative Works, LLC for breach of contract. During discovery, it was shown that the sole member of Creative Works, Charles Honeybee, had a drug addiction and frequently commingled company funds with his personal accounts, using them to cover personal bills and support his growing drug habit. Shortly after a trial court found that Creative Works was liable for breach of contract and ordered to pay Compensatory and Consequential damages to Pinella, Creative Works, LLC$,$ filed for bankruptcy. While Creative Works, LLC was in the middle of bankruptcy procedures, Charles Honeybee created a new business, Honeybee Honest Construction, as a sole proprietorship. Pinella's attorneys filed a motion to pierce the corporate veil and recover their client's award of compensatory and consequential damages from Honeybee's personal accounts. Discuss whether the court is likely to grant Pinella's petition to pierce the corporate veil.

Something to think about:

Would your answer change if Honeybee had never commingled his funds?

Does the fact that he started a sole proprietorship after his Creative Works, LLC filed for bankruptcy influence your decision? Why or why not?