[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud

From: RJack
Subject: Re: Blowhard Bradley Kuhn and his fraud
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:01:59 -0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2

On 9/23/2010 4:26 PM, David Kastrup wrote:

In short, you are again wallowing in pittoresque fantasies.

Yeaaaah........ "pittoresque fantasies". LMAO!

Bombastic barrister Ravicher is so busy arguing with himself that he
doesn't have time to argue against the defendant:

"The general rule under California law [n1] regarding successor
liability is that 'if one corporation purchases the assets of another
and pays a fair consideration therefore, no liability for the debts of
the selling corporation exists in the absence of fraud or agreement to
assume the debts.' Schwartz v, McGraw-Edison Co., 92 Cal. Rptr. 776, 783
(Cal. Ct. App. 1971) (emphasis added), abrogated on other grounds by Ray
v. Alad Corp., 560 P.2d 3 (Cal. 1977)... Moreover, the Supreme Court of
the United States has held that a federal district court lacks both
independent subject matter and ancillary jurisdiction over a subsequent
action that seeks to hold another person answerable for a
judgment, such as by asserting a post-judgment, state-law veil-piercing
claim. Peacock, 516 U.S. at 866-69."

[n1] **Plaintiffs** do not dispute that state law controls the
determination of successor liability and cites California law in support
of its argument. (Motion p. 4.)

See also:

"B. California Substantive Law Applies To Issue Of Whether Asset
Transfer Agreements Impose Successor Liability On WD

Successor liability is a matter of state law. **Plaintiffs’** Mem. in
Support [ECF 134], p. 4 citing LiButti v United States, 178 F.3d 114,
124 (2d Cir. 1999). Here, plaintiffs’ claim that WD is the successor to
Mora is based on the liquidation transactions described above: Mora’s
contractual assignment to CMA under California law, and the subsequent
asset purchase by WD from CMA. These transactions occurred in
California, and California clearly has the greatest relationship with
the transactions and the parties thereto—therefore, California’s
successor liability law applies."

Ravicher is trying mightily to argue himself out of the federal court's
jurisdiction. LMAO!

RJack :)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]