In Re Major Dynamics, Inc.

Official Creditors Committee v. Tuchinsky (In Re Major Dynamics, Inc.)

Good Law
14 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 296·1986 Bankr. LEXIS 6318·59 B.R. 697
United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of CaliforniaApril 7, 198619-00542California2,413 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hargrove, J.

MEMORANDUM OPINION RE SPECIFICATION OF FACTS AND ISSUES WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY; PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, Herbert Tuchinsky (hereinafter “Tuchin-sky”) filed a Third-Party Complaint for Declaratory Relief, Indemnity and Contribution on November 22, 1982. Martin Goldberg, the Defendant in this action, is the trustee of the estate of Major Dynamics, Inc. (hereinafter “Trustee”). Tuchinsky filed a Motion for Specification of Facts and Issues Without Substantial Controver sy; Partial Summary Judgment; and Summary Judgment. The Trustee also requested this Court grant Summary Judgment in his favor. Oral argument was heard on December 17, 1985. The Motion for Specification of Pacts and Issues Without Substantial Controversy, Partial Summary Judgment and Summary Judgment was taken under submission and this Opinion sets forth the decision of the Court.

II.

STATEMENT OP PACTS

On March 16, 1981, Major Dynamics, Inc., d/b/a Sunstone Energy Systems, Inc., S & S Solar Energy Systems, Inc. and Helios Distributing Company (hereinafter “Debtor”) filed a Voluntary Petition for Relief under Chapter 11 of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.