Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
101 b r 191%3b 1989 u s dist lexis 6367

101 b r 191%3b 1989 u s dist lexis 6367

Ratings: (0)|Views: 42|Likes:
Published by legalmatters

More info:

Published by: legalmatters on Sep 15, 2007
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Current Folder: Drafts Sign Out Compose Addresses Folders OptionsSearch Help Servage.netMessage List | Delete | Resume DraftPrevious | Next Forward | Forwardas Attachment | Reply | Reply All Subject: Ex parte in chambers From:randy@jurisimprudence.com Date: Fri, December 22, 2006 5:05 pm To: rkelton@earthlink.net Priority: Normal Options: ViewFull Header | View Printable VersionService: Get by LEXSEE® Citation: 101 B.R. 191,at193101 B.R. 191, *; 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6367, **In re INTERMAGNETICS AMERICA, INC., Intermagnetics Engineering,Inc.; American Video Tape Manufacturing Co.; Magnetic Tape International;Intermagnetics International Sales Corp.; Amex Export, Inc., Debtors. In reAmarjit Singh ANAND, an individual, fdba Agra Enterprises, Debtor.Leonard L. GUMPORT, Chapter 11 Trustee of the Estates of DebtorsIntermagnetics America, Inc., Intermagnetics Engineering, Inc.,American Video Tape Manufacturing Co., Intermagnetics International SalesCorporation, Amex Export, Inc., and Amarjit Singh Anand fdba AgraEnterprises, Plaintiff, v. CHINA INTERNATIONAL TRUST ANDINVESTMENT CORPORATION, a commercial enterprise of the People'sRepublic of China, Defendant No. CV 89-549 PAR, Case Nos. LA 84-9208 JD, LA 84-9206 JD, LA 84-9203 JD, LA 84-9209 JD, LA 84-9201 JD, LA 84-9210 JD, Related CaseUnder Chapter 11, Case No. LA 86-18220 JD [All Jointly Administered]UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICTOF CALIFORNIA101 B.R. 191; 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6367June 1, 1989, Decided June 1, 1989, FiledCASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiffs, debtors and trustee in bankruptcy,made an ex parte application for an order to show cause why sanctionsshould not be imposed against defendant corporation and its attorneys for submitting an allegedly false declaration in support of objections to jurisdiction.OVERVIEW: In the course of its proceeding against the corporation, plaintiffs made an ex parte application for an order to show cause whysanctions should not be imposed against the corporation and its attorneys for submitting an allegedly false declaration in support of objections to a jurisdictional statement. The court noted that ex parte applications only were permitted in three instances: (1) where there was some genuine urgency suchthat immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage would result to theapplicant before the adverse party or his attorney could be heard inopposition as contemplated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b); (2) where therewas a danger that notice to an opposing party would result in that party'sflight, destruction of evidence, or secretion of assets; and, (3) where theother side actually was served when a party sought a routine order. The courtconcluded that plaintiffs' ex parte application did not qualify under any of the three instances. The circumstances giving rise to the request for sanctions were not likely to change in the time needed to notice a motion.The court denied plaintiffs' motion without prejudice.OUTCOME: The court denied plaintiffs' ex parte application for an order toshow cause why sanctions should not be imposed against the corporationand its attorneys for allegedly filing a false declaration.CORE TERMS: ex parte, ex parte application, hybrid, notice, parte, ex parte proceedings, Local Rules, ex parte communication, ex parte contact, pure form, opposing, ethical, adversary system, pervasive, seizure, destroy,urgency, destroy evidence, noticed motion, procedurally, noticed, chambers,viceLexisNexis(R) Headnotes Hide HeadnotesCivil Procedure > Counsel > General OverviewCivil Procedure > Remedies > Writs > Ancillary Writs > Writs of Attachment
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search & Seizure > Search Warrants >General OverviewHN1 The opportunities for legitimate ex parte applications are extremelylimited. Essentially, these opportunities are the following: first, where thereis some genuine urgency such that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the applicant before the adverse party or his attorneycan be heard in opposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b); second, ex parte proceedings are appropriate where there is a danger that notice to anopposing party will result in that party's flight, destruction of evidence, or secretion of assets; third, "hybrid ex parte applications," i.e., where the other side actually is served, may be necessary when a party seeks a routine order,e.g., to file an overlong brief or to shorten the time within which a motionmay be brought. More Like This Headnote | Shepardize: Restrict ByHeadnoteLegal Ethics > Professional Conduct > TribunalsHN2 Hybrid ex part applications ought properly to be addressed to the needto exceed the page limit or for shortened time, rather than to the substance of the motion itself. More Like This HeadnoteLegal Ethics > Professional Conduct > TribunalsLegal Ethics > Sanctions > General OverviewHN3 It is imperative that, when one party seeks sanctions against another,the second party have an opportunity to answer the charges made and todevelop a careful and complete record. More Like This HeadnoteCOUNSEL: [**1]Michael R. Tyler, Esq., Paul Presburger, Esq., Hufstedler, Miller, Kaus &Breadsley, Los Angeles, California, for Plaintiffs.Jeffrey C. Coyne, Esq., Coudert Brothers, Los Angeles, California, David A.Ranheim, Esq., Dorsey & Whitney, Minneapolis, Minnasota, for Defendant.

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->