context: (R. 214, Pl.'s Facts, Ex. 6.) Such references fail to demonstrate that the subsidiary is an alter ego or "mere instrumentality" of the parent.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 68 F.3d 1460, 1460
citation_a.parenthetical: noting that the district court properly rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the descriptions of the relationship between the parent and subsidiary as well as the presence of the parent's logo in subsidiary's promotional literature justified piercing the corporate veil
citation_a.sentence: See Esmark, 887 F.2d at 757; Joiner, 966 F.Supp. at 1490 (“the parent owns the subsidiary, it can do anything it wants with its subsidiary — the subsidiary has no choice but to obey”); see also Fletcher, 68 F.3d at 1460 (noting that the district court properly rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the descriptions of the relationship between the parent and subsidiary as well as the presence of the parent’s logo in subsidiary’s promotional literature justified piercing the corporate veil).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 966 F.Supp. 1490, 1490
citation_b.parenthetical: "the parent owns the subsidiary, it can do anything it wants with its subsidiary -- the subsidiary has no choice but to obey"
citation_b.sentence: See Esmark, 887 F.2d at 757; Joiner, 966 F.Supp. at 1490 (“the parent owns the subsidiary, it can do anything it wants with its subsidiary — the subsidiary has no choice but to obey”); see also Fletcher, 68 F.3d at 1460 (noting that the district court properly rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the descriptions of the relationship between the parent and subsidiary as well as the presence of the parent’s logo in subsidiary’s promotional literature justified piercing the corporate veil).