Karp v. Ted L. Vance & Sons

Ninth Circuit

Karp v. Ted L. Vance & Sons

22 F. App'x 890

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 28, 2001

DocketNo. 00-57003; BAP No. SC-99-01525-RRyB

StatusPublished

This text of 22 F. App'x 890 (Karp v. Ted L. Vance & Sons) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Karp v. Ted L. Vance & Sons, 22 F. App'x 890 (9th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

The law firm of Karp, Richardson & DerOvanesian (“KRD”) appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s order affirming a bankruptcy court’s denial of its motion to reopen the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of general contractor Ted Vance & Sons. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for abuse of discretion a bankruptcy court’s ruling on a motion to reopen, Weiner v. Perry, Settles & Lawson, Inc. (In re Weiner), 161 F.3d 1216, 1217 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.

Because it was not satisfied that settlement efforts had been exhausted, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying KRD’s motion to reopen. See Lindsay v. Beneficial Reinsurance Co. (In re Lindsay), 59 F.3d 942, 950 (9th Cir.1995).

We decline to impose sanctions against appellant under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

The law firm of Karp, Richardson & DerOvanesian (“KRD”) appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s order affirming a bankruptcy court’s denial of its motion to reopen the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of general contractor Ted Vance & Sons. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review for abuse of discretion a bankruptcy court’s ruling on a motion to reopen, Weiner v. Perry, Settles & Lawson, Inc. (In re Weiner), 161 F.3d 1216, 1217 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.

Because it was not satisfied that settlement efforts had been exhausted, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by denying KRD’s motion to reopen. See Lindsay v. Beneficial Reinsurance Co. (In re Lindsay), 59 F.3d 942, 950 (9th Cir.1995).

We decline to impose sanctions against appellant under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

In Re John R. Lindsay, Debtor. John R. Lindsay Lindsay Enterprises, Inc., a California Corporation Ima 79-6, a California Limited Partnership And, Ima 81-3, a California Limited Partnership v. Beneficial Reinsurance Company, a Corporation Beneficial Standard Life Insurance Company, a Corporation and Does 1-100, Inclusive, in Re John R. Lindsay, Debtor. (Three Cases) John R. Lindsay, a California Corporation Paul Bushard v. Beneficial Reinsurance Company, a Corporation Beneficial Standard Life Insurance Company, a Corporation and Does 1-100, Inclusive, John R. Lindsay, a California Corporation Ima, a California Limited Partnership v. Beneficial Reinsurance Company, a Corporation Beneficial Standard Life Insurance Company, a Corporation and Does 1-100, Inclusive, John R. Lindsay, a California Corporation Ima, a California Limited Partnership v. Beneficial Reinsurance Company, a Corporation Beneficial Standard Life Insurance Company, a Corporation and Does 1-100, Inclusive

59 F.3d 942 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)

In Re: Katherine D. Weiner, Debtor. Steven L. Weiner v. Perry, Settles & Lawson, Inc.

161 F.3d 1216 (Ninth Circuit, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 F. App'x 890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karp-v-ted-l-vance-sons-ca9-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack