Probably not. Keith Paul Bishop explains:
The Nevada Supreme Court has not expressly held that the laws for piercing the corporate veil under the alter-ego doctrine apply to LLCs, but it has applied those rules in the LLC context, “assum[ing] without deciding that” the corporate analysis applies.
Pharmaplast S.A.E. v. Zeus Medical Holdings, LLC, et al. Case No. 2:15-cv-002432-JAD-PAL. (D. Nevada, March 14, 2017) (footnote omitted citing Webb v. Shull, 270 P.3d 1266, 1271 n.3 (Nev. 2012) and JSA, LLC v. Golden Gaming, Inc., 2013 Nev. Unpub. LEXIS 1449 (Nev. 2013)). Judge Dorsey could have, but did not mention, that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has similarly assumed, but not decided, that members of a Nevada LLC at risk of alter ego liability. Volvo Constr. Equip. Rents, Inc. v. NRL Rentals, LLC, 614 Fed. Appx. 876, 878 n. 1 (9th Cir. Nev. 2015). Nonetheless, the legislative history to Nevada’s LLC law supports the proposition that members may be liable under the alter ego doctrine as noted in Bishop and Zucker on Nevada Corporations and Limited Liability Companies § 16.4[A].
Of course, I have argued against extending veil piercing and alter ego to the LLC setting, most recently in Todd Henderson's and my book Limited Liability: A Legal and Economic Analysis
