Mabry v. Beckstoffer

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that two companies were not alter egos where there was only \a single instance of a shared customer or project\
• noting that courts have interpreted “Twombly to require complaints to contain either direct of inferential allegations respecting all material elements to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory” (internal citation omitted)
• explaining that the district court found this factor inapplicable and that, “[i]n a case like this, where a fee-award claimant seeks benefits only for himself, this Court generally has found the 3 common-benefit factor to weigh against an attorney-fee award”
• “In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a district court cannot consider matters beyond the complaint.”
• when the court finds that the plaintiff did not bring the lawsuit in bad faith, “a fee award is even less appropriate for deterrent purposes”
• “[G]eneralized and conclusory allegations . . . are plainly insufficient to state a claim of alter ego status”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).