agreements with the International Union of Elevator Constructors (IUEC), the first effective from July 9, 1992 to July 8, 1997, and the second effective from July 8, 1997 to July 8, 2002. See PL's Ex. 6A. These collective bargaining agreements bound American to the terms of the Standard Agreement between the National Elevator Industry and the IUEC, see id., which in turn bound it to the terms of the Restated Agreements and the amendments thereto. See Pl.’s Ex. 6B. 5 . Although courts in other jurisdictions have explicitly disagreed with the veil-piercing requirement of Solomon, see, e.g., Rockney v. Pako Corp., 734 F.Supp. 373, 378 (D.Minn.1988) and citations therein, many courts are now in agreement with Solomon. See Antol v. Esposto, 100 F.3d 1111, 1117 and n. 2 (3d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). 6 . As of October 24, 2000, Lutyk testified
holding that a mistake by a partys counsel in interpreting a statute of limitations does not present the extraordinary circumstance beyond the partys control where equity should step in to give the party the benefit of his erroneous understanding and noting a majority of other circuits agree citing cases from the second third fifth seventh eighth ninth eleventh and federal circuits recognizing in a case involving analogous provisions of the labor management relations act of 1947 29 usc  185 that a majority of courts in other jurisdictions agree with solomon and citing the 1st 2nd 6th 7th 8th 9th and dc circuits holding that certificates of deposit are instruments and noting that the majority of jurisdictions agree holding that  301 of the labor management relations act of 1947 29 usc  185 does not preempt claims brought under washingtons minimum wage act chapter 4946 rcw holding that the same conclusion is compelled by this circuits reasoning in an analogous case