that is, whether Novar even owed a duty of reasonable care to Indalex’s employees with respect to workplace safety. Plaintiff nevertheless argues that the allegations in paragraph 9 of its Complaint “that Defendants Novar pic and Novar, Inc. actively undertook ‘control over the facilities, equipment and operation [of In-dalex] ... including the operational and safety policies and procedures’ ” are sufficient to show that Novar assumed a duty of care towards Plaintiffs employees. (Pl.’s Br. Opp. Novar’s Mot. Dismiss at 12 (quoting Compl. ¶ 9) (second alteration in original).) The Court finds, however, that paragraph 9 contains no allegations of a “positive undertaking” by Novar to ensure the safety of Indalex’s employees. See Muniz, 737 F.2d at 148; see also Hinkle, 24 F.Supp.2d at 821 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs allegations in paragraph 9 are
holding that directors of a whollyowned corporation could consider the interests of the parent company as well as the interests of their corporation because there was only one substantive interest to be protected holding that there must be evidence that the parent corporation assumed a duty to ensure safety holding that claims of corporation vest in corporation recognizing duty of parent to control conduct of child holding that njeither mere concern with nor minimal contact about safety matters creates a duty to ensure a safe working environment for the employees of a subsidiary corporation