In Re Carter

Danning v. Donovan (In Re Carter)

Good Law
14 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 742·1986 Bankr. LEXIS 5715·62 B.R. 1007
United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of CaliforniaJuly 9, 1986Bankruptcy No. SA 83-05401 RP, Adv. No. SA 85-0368 RPCalifornia4,284 words

Opinion

Opinion

Pagter, J.

The Co-trustees’ motion to compel production of documents and answers to deposition questions came on regularly for hearing on April 21, 1986. Michael Goldstein appeared on behalf of movants. Alan Tip-pie appeared on behalf of respondents. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court held that the real party in interest, Thomas D. Carter (“Carter”), was entitled to respond to the motion, and that the Co-trustees were entitled to reply to Carter’s response. Subsequent to receipt of Carter’s response and the Co-trustees’ reply, the matter was taken under submission on May 29, 1986. For the reasons stated below, Co-trustees’ motion is DENIED.

FACTS

The Carter Company, Tom Carter Enterprises, Inc., Huck’s Holiday, Inc., and Tom Carter Enterprises, Las Vegas, Inc. filed their respective voluntary Chapter 11 petitions on December 8, 1983. Thomas and Diana Carter filed their joint voluntary Chapter 11 petition on December 9, 1983. Subsequent to consent by all debtors, the court appointed the Co-trustees on December 14, 1983.

Shortly after filings, all of the debtors requested and received thirty-day extensions to file schedules and statements of affairs. However, none of the debtors…

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.