Neilson

Neilson v. California, Franchise Tax Board (In re Newedge)

Good Law
123 B.R. 361·1989 Bankr. LEXIS 2718
United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of CaliforniaJune 12, 1989No. LA 87-01467-NCA; Adv. No. LA 88-01821-NCACalifornia7,577 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Ashland, J.

STATEMENT OF UN CONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The motion for partial summary judgment of plaintiff R. Todd Neilson, Successor Trustee of debtor Newedge, a Nevada corporation, came on for hearing before the Court on March 20, 1988, the Honorable Calvin K. Ashland, United States Bankruptcy Judge, presiding. The plaintiff was represented by Pachulski, Stang & Ziehl, P.C., with an appearance by Jeremy V. Richards, and by Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, with appearances by Nancy L. Iredale and Jeffrey G. Varga. The defendant, State of California, Franchise Tax Board, was represented by John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General of the State of California, Edmond B. Mamer, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Lawrence P. Scherb, II, Deputy Attorney General, with an appearance by Deputy Attorney General Lawrence P. Scherb II. The Court, having considered the plaintiffs moving papers, supporting declarations and exhibits, the defendant’s opposition, the plaintiffs reply papers, oral argument of counsel, and all other matters properly a part of the record, hereby makes the following Statement of Uneontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law:

STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

1.…

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.