Tucker Plastics, Inc. v. Pay 'N Pak Stores, Inc. (In re PNP Holdings Corp.)

Good Law
96 Daily Journal DAR 13217·99 F.3d 910·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 28120·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7965
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 31, 1996No. 95-35871California264 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Tucker Plastics, Inc. filed a proof of claim in Pay ’N Pak Stores, Inc.’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. Later, the trustee in Pay ’N Pak’s bankruptcy estate initiated a preference action against Tucker. Tucker, a Canadian corporation, filed a motion for summary judgment, contesting the bankruptcy court’s personal jurisdiction. The bankruptcy court denied the motion, holding that under Katchen v. Landy, 382 U.S. 323, 335 , 86 S.Ct. 467, 475-76 , 15 L.Ed.2d 391 (1966), a creditor who files a proof of claim consents to the bankruptcy court’s personal jurisdiction over the creditor in proceedings to resolve the bankruptcy estate’s objections to the claim. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed. See Tucker Plastics, Inc. v. Pay ’N Pak Stores, Inc. (In re PNP Holdings Corp. & Pay ’N Pak Stores, Inc.), 184 B.R. 805 (9th Cir. BAP 1995). We affirm the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.

Tucker argues that Katchen was undercut by the promulgation of Bankruptcy Rule 7004(e), establishing a procedure for asserting personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant through the service of summons. This provision, Tucker asserts, precludes the court from implying personal jurisdiction from the filing…

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.