Legal Opinion

Paxton v. Quinlan

District Court, N.D. California

Decided June 22, 2020No. 4:20-cv-01655Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PAXTON, et al. Case No. 20-cv-01655-PJH 8 Appellants, 9 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY 10 QUINLAN, et al. Re: Dkt. No. 6 11 Appellees. 12 13 14 Before the court is appellants John and Elizabeth Paxton’s (“appellants”) motion to 15 stay bankruptcy proceedings. The matter is fully briefed and suitable for decision without 16 oral argument. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments 17 and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby DENIES 18 appellants’ motion…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Hilton v. BraunskillSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. Ohanian v. Irwin (In Re Irwin)District Court, E.D. California · 2006
  4. Dynamic Finance Corp. v. Chapter 11 Trustee Richard Kipperman (In Re North Plaza, LLC)District Court, S.D. California · 2008
  5. In re SwartoutUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California · 2016

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

Powered by the Exa API