1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. B.R.
  4. 142 B.R.
  5. 142 B.R. 905 (1992)
 

ERMAN v. LOX EQUIPMENT CO.

No. C 91-1257 BAC.

142 B.R. 905 (1992)

John ERMAN and Cherie Erman; Donald Patchin and Sonya Patchin; Rosindo Salinas and Cora Salinas; and Richard Martini as successors in interest to Union Rebar, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. LOX EQUIPMENT COMPANY, a Delaware corporation (formerly Richmond Lox Equipment Company); Woodward-Clyde Consultants, a Nevada Corporation; and Richmond Tank Car Company d/b/a Richmond Industries, Defendants. LOX EQUIPMENT COMPANY, a Delaware corporation (formerly Richmond Lox Equipment Company), Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. Lewis E. BALL, II and Richmond Tank Car Company, a Delaware corporation, Third-Party Defendants.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

July 1, 1992.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Matthew Righetti, Paul A. Montesanti, The Righetti Law Firm, Pleasanton, Cal., for plaintiffs.

Garrett E. Mulrooney, Gordon J. Apple, Jennifer A. Lew, Maun & Simon Law Firm, St. Paul, Minn., Robert Kavanaugh, Lillick & Charles, San Francisco, Cal., Donald J. Christie, Kirkendall & Collins, Houston, Tex., for defendant/third-party plaintiff Lox Equipment Co.

Anne M. Lawlor Goyette, Paul J. Sanner, Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant Woodward-Clyde Consultants.

Gary Ewell, Ewell & Levy, San Francisco, Cal., for third-party defendant Lewis E. Ball, II.

F. Witcher McCullough, III, Mitchell A. Seider, Sheinfeld, Maley & Kay, P.C., Austin, Tex., Tamar Pachter, Farella, Braun & Martel, San Francisco, Cal., for third-party defendant Richmond Tank Car Co.

Gerald A. Cohn, Orinda, Cal., Special Master.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

CAULFIELD, District Judge.

This matter comes before the court on the motion of Defendant Richmond Tank Car Company ("RTC") to dismiss the second amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) or, alternatively, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Oral argument was heard on June 19, 1992. After careful consideration of the parties' oral...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases