Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

In Re 1441 Veteran Street Co., Debtor. Gold Coast Asset Acquisition, L.P. v. 1441 Veteran Street Co., and Levene & Eisenberg, 96-56445 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Number: 96-56445 Visitors: 8
Filed: Sep. 10, 1998
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 154 F.3d 1103 2 Cal. Bankr. Ct. Rep. 31 In re 1441 VETERAN STREET CO., Debtor. GOLD COAST ASSET ACQUISITION, L.P., Appellant, v. 1441 VETERAN STREET CO., and Levene & Eisenberg, Appellee. No. 96-56445. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Sept. 10, 1998. 1 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Kim McKane Wardlaw, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV 95-08785-KMW. 2 Before: SCHROEDER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges, and WHYTE, * District Jud
More

154 F.3d 1103

2 Cal. Bankr. Ct. Rep. 31

In re 1441 VETERAN STREET CO., Debtor.
GOLD COAST ASSET ACQUISITION, L.P., Appellant,
v.
1441 VETERAN STREET CO.,
and
Levene & Eisenberg, Appellee.

No. 96-56445.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Sept. 10, 1998.

1

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Kim McKane Wardlaw, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV 95-08785-KMW.

2

Before: SCHROEDER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges, and WHYTE,* District Judge.

Prior report: 144 F.3d 1288

ORDER

3

The opinion is hereby amended (1) to delete the following sentences appearing in the second-to-last paragraph of the opinion: "However, it appears that L & E raises this argument for the first time on appeal. Therefore, L & E is precluded from raising this argument. See United States v. Flores-Payon, 942 F.2d 556, 558 (9th Cir.1991) ('Issues not presented to trial court cannot generally be raised for the first time on appeal.')" and (2) to substitute therefor: "However, L & E points to insufficient facts to justify application of the exception and the bankruptcy court made no finding that would support the application."

4

The panel as constituted above has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

5

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35.

6

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.

*

The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer