Ramlall v. Mobilepro Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• declining to pierce the corporate veil in a breach of contract seeking compensation for services performed
• applying Maryland law where plaintiff sought to pierce veil of Delaware corporation for failure to pay bonus fee, allegedly in violation of Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law
• declining to hold parent company liable for breach of contract by its subsidiary (citing Bart Arconti & Sons v. Ames-Ennis, Inc., 275 Md. 295, 310 (1975))
• declining to hold a parent company liable for breach of contract by its subsidiary (citing Bart Arconti & Sons v. Ames-Ennis, Inc., 340 A.2d 225, 234 (Md. 1975))
• applying Maryland law where plaintiff sought to pierce the veil of Delaware corporation
• “With no precedent approving this extraordinary remedy, we decline to pierce the corporate veil [ ] based on the paramount equity justification.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).