Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

In the Matter of Los Angeles Land and Investments, Ltd., Debtor. Ralph S. Aoki, Trustee v. Laura C. Light, Claimant-Appellant

In the Matter of L.A. Land & Invs., Ltd., Debtor. Ralph S. Aoki, Tr. v. Laura C. Light, Claimant-Appellant, 447 F.2d 1366 (9th Cir. 1971)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1971-09-16
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from an order of the district judge affirming (with one exception not here relevant) two orders of the referee in bankruptcy denying appellant’s claims in the reorganization proceeding and allowing a counterclaim by the reorganization trustee against appellant and two others. The underlying facts can be found in the decision of the district judge classifying creditors and stockholders of the debtor reported at 282 F.Supp. 448 (D.Hawaii 1968). From a review of the record before us we cannot say that the decision of the district judge in light of the record and findings of the referee was “clearly erroneous.” Without defining the nature of the claims asserted, we are unable to distinguish the present case from Alexander v. Hillman, 296 U.S. 222, 56 S.Ct. 204, 80 L.Ed. 192 (1935), which forecloses appellant’s arguments attacking the summary jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court, The judgment is affirmed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed In the Matter of Los Angeles Land and Investments, Ltd., Debtor. Ralph S. Aoki, Trustee v. Laura C. Light, Claimant-Appellant. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
7 opinions
LOS ANGELES LAND, v. LIGHT,447 F.2d 1366(9th Cir. 1971)
In the Matter of LOS ANGELES LAND AND INVESTMENTS, LTD., Debtor. Ralph S.
AOKI, Trustee, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Laura C. LIGHT, Claimant-Appellant.
No. 24740.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
September 16, 1971.
Page 1367
Leonard A. Goldman, (argued), of Goldman, Goldman Arnold, Los Angeles, Cal., Richard M.C. Lum, Honolulu, Hawaii, for claimant-appellant.

H. William Burgess (argued), Don Jeffrey Gelber, Honolulu, Hawaii, Paul Gonson, Asst. Gen. Counsel (argued), Washington, D.C., Allen F. Corotto, S.E.C., San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner-appellee.
Before BROWNING and ELY, Circuit Judges, and THOMPSON, District Judge.fn*
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from an order of the district judge affirming (with one exception not here relevant) two orders of the referee in bankruptcy denying appellant's claims in the reorganization proceeding and allowing a counterclaim by the reorganization trustee against appellant and two others. The underlying facts can be found in the decision of the district judge classifying creditors and stockholders of the debtor reported at282 F. Supp. 448(D.Hawaii 1968).

From a review of the record before us we cannot say that the decision of the district judge in light of the record and findings of the referee was "clearly erroneous."

Without defining the nature of the claims asserted, we are unable to distinguish the present case from Alexander v. Hillman,296 U.S. 222, 56 S.Ct. 204, 80 L.Ed. 192 (1935), which forecloses appellant's arguments attacking the summary jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court.

The judgment is affirmed.
  1. Honorable Gordon Thompson, Jr., United States District Judge, Southern District of California, sitting by designation. ↩