Lewis v. Durham

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• detailing factual evidence that CVS Health is a holding company without operations and dismissing complaint against CVS Health for lack of jurisdiction as a result
• accepting at Rule 12 stage fraud plaintiffs’ allegations “that CVS created [discount] program to report misleading U&C prices in a manner that contravened industry standards”
• denying motion to dismiss where “all of the missing details are likely in the possession of CVS”
• finding no general jurisdiction based on alter-ego theory even when the two entities had overlapping officers and directors and they presented themselves as one integrated company on websites, in marketing materials, and in government filings
• “[S]eparate corporate entities presenting themselves as one online does not rise to the level of unity of interest required to show companies are alter egos.”
• “Other 9 post-Daimler plaintiffs have attempted similarly ill-fated arguments for general jurisdiction based 10 on the old standard.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).