Linus Holding Corp. v. Mark Line Indus., LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• refusing to pierce the corporate veil because even assuming alleged transfers constituted a disregard of corporate formalities, the plaintiff otherwise failed to demonstrate the presence of any of the other factors relevant to a veil-piercing analysis
• “[B]ecause Plaintiff’s success on this motion is not contingent upon an application of Florida, Utah, or New Jersey law, the Court proceeds to apply the laws of New Jersey”
• “[A] court may impute the contacts of a subsidiary corporation to a foreign parent corporation for the purpose of exercising specific jurisdiction, if the subsidiary corporation is merely operating as the parent corporation’s alter ego . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).