Grocery Haulers, Inc. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc., 012513 FED2, 12-800-bk
|Party Name:||Grocery Haulers, Inc., Appellant, v. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc., et al., Debtor-Appellee.|
|Attorney:||FOR APPELLANT: Stephen B. Selbst (William R. Fried, Joshua J. Angel, and Justin B. Singer on the brief), Herrick, Feinstein LLP, New York, N.Y. FOR DEBTOR-APPELLEE: Andrew Genser (Paul M. Basta and Ray C. Schrock, on the brief), Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, N.Y.|
|Judge Panel:||PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges, JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge.|
|Case Date:||January 25, 2013|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 25th day of January, two thousand thirteen.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Seibel, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Appellant Grocery Haulers, Inc., ("GHI") appeals from a January 27, 2012, Opinion and Order and a January 30, 2012, Judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Seibel, J.) affirming a decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Drain, J.). The bankruptcy court denied GHI's motion (1) for a determination that the automatic stay did not bar GHI from filing a third-party complaint against Debtor-Appellee The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc., et al. ("A&P"); or (2) in the alternative, for a grant of relief from the automatic stay. The bankruptcy court concluded that the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1) applied to GHI's claims because the claims arose from A&P's rejection of a contract and are consequently treated as arising pre-petition...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP