In re J & L STRUCTURAL, Debtor.
Howell A. Breedlove, both individually & as an officer of J & L Structural, Inc., Voest-Alpine Industries, Inc., Carlson Manufacturing Co., Inc., Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton Co. of Pittsburgh, Stena Metal, Inc, Marcus & Shapira LLP, Pittsburgh Logistics Systems, Inc., Roanoke Electric Steel Corporation, Defendant-Appellants,
v.
William Pineo, Trustee for J & L Structural, Inc. Plaintiff-Appellee.
United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
August 11, 2004.
August 11, 2004.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Robert Stein, Douglas Amadeo, Greenberg Traurig, New York City, Jeffery A. Deller, Klett, Rooney, Lieber & Schorling, Pittsburgh, PA, for Mentmore Holding Corporation and CPT Holdings, Inc.
Robert O. Lampl, Pittsburgh, PA, on behalf William Pineo, Trustee.
Marc Morley Kane, Pittsburgh, PA, for Carl Snyder and James E. Howe, individually and as an officer of J & L Structural, Inc.
James D. Newell, Klett, Rooney, Lieber & Schorling, Pittsburgh, PA, on behalf of Roanoke Electric Steel Corporation.
Kimberly Luff Wakim, Thorp, Reed & Armstrong, Pittsburgh, PA, on behalf of Pittsburgh Logistics Systems, Inc.
Darlene M. Nowak, Marcus & Shapira, Pittsburgh, PA, on behalf of Marcus & Shapira.
Gary Seitz, Philadelphia, PA, on behalf of Rogal & Hamilton and Stena Metal, Inc.
Michael J. Henny, Miller, Ament, Henny & Kochuba, Pittsburgh, PA, on behalf of Carlson Manufacturing Company, Inc.
Paul David Burke, Sherrard, German & Kelly, Pittsburgh, PA, on behalf of Voest-Alpine Industries, Inc.
Thomas D. Maxson, Cohen & Grigsby, Pittsburgh, PA, on behalf of Howell A. Breedlove.
Norman E. Gilkey, Babst, Calland, Clements & Zomnir, Pittsburgh, PA, on behalf of Debtor, J & L Structural.
United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
CONTI, District Judge.
Introduction
This is an appeal from an order of the bankruptcy court entered on September 2, 2003. In that order, the bankruptcy court denied defendant-appellants' motions to dismiss their separate adversary actions. Defendant-appellants in their consolidated appeal assert that the bankruptcy court erred by denying the dismissal motions because, inter alia, the court lacked subject-matter...
Let's get started
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.
