Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Polo Building Group, Inc. v. Rakita (In Re Shubov)

United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit

Decided September 27, 2000No. BAP No. NC-99-1531-KPRy, Bankruptcy No. 95-3-2611-TCPublished

1Concurrence

KLEIN, Bankruptcy Judge,

concurring:

I join the majority opinion and write separately for the sake of completeness to note that Civil Rules 26(g) and 37 are other arrows in the sanctions quiver.

In order for these rules to apply in the present instance, however, we would have to conclude that Polo’s motion to compel is, itself, a “contested matter” under Bankruptcy Rule 9014. Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9014, incorporating Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7026-7037.

I

If applicable, Civil Rule 26(g), is another basis for affirming the award. Fed. R.Civ.P. 26(g), incorporated by Fed. R.Bankr.P. 7026. This rule applies in…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Barton Business Park Associates v. Alexander (In Re Barton Business Park Associates)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California · 1990

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API