In re Best Re-Manufacturing Co.

Citation453 F.2d 848
Decision Date08 December 1971
Docket NumberNo. 26738.,26738.
PartiesIn the Matter of BEST RE-MANUFACTURING CO., Debtor. Don ROTHMAN, Receiver, Appellant, v. The PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Petitioner, Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

Richard F. Broude (argued) and Nathan Markowitz, of Gendel Raskoff, Shapiro & Quittner, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

Richard D. DeLuce (argued) of Lawler, Felix & Hall, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before BARNES and MERRILL, Circuit Judges, and CROCKER, District Judge*.

PER CURIAM:

The question here presented is whether, in arrangement proceedings under Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act (§§ 301-399), 11 U.S.C. § 701-799, Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company can summarily be ordered to provide service to the receiver under the telephone number currently being used by the debtor. The Referee refused to enter such an order and, on petition for review, the District Court affirmed. This appeal was then taken. We affirm.

The Telephone Company is perfectly willing to provide service to the debtor under a new number and has, indeed, submitted without opposition to an order that it do so. It rebels, however, against having to provide service under the old number until satisfactory arrangements have been made for taking care of sums owing to it by the debtor.

Rules and regulations respecting the telephone company as filed with the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California support the telephone company. They deal with conditions under which a new customer (here the receiver) may "supersede the service of a subscriber discountinuing that service." This may be done "where an arrangement acceptable to the company is made to pay outstanding charges against the service."

The receiver protests that continuation of debtor's old telephone number is of vital importance to the debtor's arrangement, as the greater part of its business is initiated by telephone calls; that to submit to the telephone company's "supersedure" requirements is to permit it to coerce preferential treatment of the debt owing to it by the debtor.

The telephone company responds that the Bankruptcy Court is without summary jurisdiction to act in this matter, since the dispute does not involve property of the debtor in possession of the receiver, and resolution of the dispute, accordingly, must be by plenary action.

Such was the holding in Slenderella Systems of Berkeley, Inc. v. Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co., 286 F.2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Preferred Home Inspections, Inc. v. Bellsouth Telecomms., LLC, Civil Action No.: 3:14-cv-00673-MBS
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • September 24, 2014
    ...In re StarNet. Inc., 355 F.3d 634, 637 (7th Cir. 2004) ("No one has a property interest in a phone number."); In re Best Re-Mfg. Co., 453 F.2d 848, 850 (9th Cir.1971); Slenderella Sys. of Berkeley, Inc. v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co., 286 F.2d 488, 490 (2d Cir. 1961). 7. The relevant requirements ......
  • Erving v. Sigler, 71-1242.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • January 14, 1972
    ...... and timely motion of appellant, to sever his trial from those of his co-defendants or to require witnesses to delete hearsay references to ......
  • Network Solutions, Inc. v. Umbro Intern., Record No. 991168.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Virginia
    • April 21, 2000
    ...that telephone numbers were neither property of, nor in possession of, bankrupt subscribers); Rothman v. Pacific Tel. & Telegraph Co., 453 F.2d 848, 849-50 (9th Cir.1971)(following decision in Slenderella), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 919, 92 S.Ct. 1771, 32 L.Ed.2d 118 We are cognizant of the si......
  • Department of Commerce, B-327398
    • United States
    • Comptroller General of the United States
    • September 12, 2016
    ...the Government may receive and hold copyrights obtained by others. 17 U.S.C. § 105. [28] Commerce cites to In re Best Re-Mfg. Co., 453 F.2d 848 (9th Cir. 1971), and In re iPhone App. Litig., 844 F.Supp.2d 1040 (N.D. Cal. 2012). 2015 Commerce Letter at 5. [29] Although we find it is unlikely......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT