In re Highley
| Decision Date | 19 April 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1144.,71-1144. |
| Citation | 459 F.2d 554 |
| Parties | In the Matter of George C. HIGHLEY, individually and dba The Highlander, etc., Bankrupts. HIGHLANDER, INC., and Cybertronica-Nevada, Inc., et al., Claimants-Appellants, v. Don ROTHMAN, Trustee, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Robert G. Leff (argued), of Lipsig, Rosenfield, Temkin & Leff, Beverly Hills, Cal., Robert Krause, Long Beach, Cal., for appellants.
Richard F. Broude (argued), of Gendel, Raskoff, Shapiro & Quittner, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before KOELSCH, DUNIWAY and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
Appellants seek to have the involuntary adjudication of bankruptcy of Highlander, Inc., set aside on grounds that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction over the proceedings.
An involuntary petition in bankruptcy was filed on June 23, 1966, against George C. Highley, individually and doing business as The Highlander, Highlander Sanitarium, and Highlander, Inc., and against Highlander, Inc., a California corporation doing business as The Highlander and Highlander Sanitarium. Because various parties purported to speak for Highlander, Inc., it was stipulated that Stuart Schoenburg would act as counsel for the corporation in the proceedings.
Highley consented to be adjudicated a bankrupt and was so adjudicated on January 30, 1967. On November 7, 1968, Highlander, Inc., was adjudicated bankrupt by the Referee in Bankruptcy, all operating assets of the corporation having been sold on January 31, 1968. A petition for review of that order of adjudication was filed by E. M. Comora, but that petition was dismissed by the district court because Comora was a creditor of the bankrupt and had no standing to seek review of the adjudication. Thereafter, the trustee disbursed the remaining assets of the bankrupt corporation among various claimants.
On December 17, 1969, Comora filed a petition for an order appointing Lipsig, Rosenfield, Temkin & Leff as attorneys for Highlander, Inc., Mr. Schoenburg having been suspended from the practice of law in California the previous December. At the same time, the appellants here filed a motion to set aside the adjudication in bankruptcy of Highlander, Inc., and to dismiss the bankruptcy proceedings on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction because the original petition had joined the corporation and George Highley in a single petition without the requisite allegation that they were partners. The Referee, on January 28, 1970, denied the motion to appoint Lipsig, Rosenfield, Temkin & Leff as attorneys for the corporation because of a conflict of interest; the firm was representing creditors of the bankrupt in these same proceedings. No petition for review was taken from that order, and it became final on February 7, 1970. The motion to set aside the adjudication was denied on April 2, 1970, and appellants petitioned for review of the Referee's order. On September 22, 1970, the district court denied the petition for review and affirmed the order of the Referee. An appeal was taken to this court.
Highlander, Inc. purports to appeal "for itself and its attorneys, Lipsig, Rosenfield, Temkin & Leff" from the refusal to set aside the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction. Both the corporation and the attorneys attempt in this appeal to attack the order denying the application to appoint the attorneys as counsel for the corporation. Because no petition for review was filed within ten days after the January 28 order refusing to appoint the firm as counsel for Highlander, Inc., that order became final and cannot be challenged in this appeal. 11 U.S.C. § 67(c). This law firm therefore does not represent Highlander, Inc., nor has it any independent interest in the bankruptcy proceedings. It is not an "aggrieved person" within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 67(c) and has no standing to seek review of the Referee's order of April 2, 1970.
A corporation can appear in a court proceeding only through an attorney at law. See, e. g., United States v. 9.19 Acres of Land, 6 Cir., 1969, 416 F.2d 1244, 1245 ; Shapiro Bernstein & Co. v. Continental Record Co., 2 Cir., 1967, 386 F.2d 426, 427 ; Simbraw, Inc. v. United States, 3 Cir., 1966, 367 F.2d 373 ; DeVilliers v. Atlas Corp., 10 Cir., 1966, 360 F.2d 292, 294. The attorneys purporting to act for Highlander, Inc. in this appeal were specifically denied the privilege of representing that corporation by the Referee because of a conflict of interest, and that order is final. The corporation, not being represented by an attorney, is not properly before us.
The remaining appellants are creditors of the bankrupt, and as such, they were denied standing to challenge the adjudication of bankruptcy by the Referee and the district court. We agree that creditors cannot oppose an involuntary adjudication of bankruptcy, either...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Multi Denominational Ministry v. Gonzales
... ... In re America West Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir.1994) ("Corporations and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney."); Church of the New Testament v. United States, 783 F.2d 771, 773 (9th Cir1986) (citing In re Highley, 459 F.2d 554, 555 (9th Cir.1972)) ... Plaintiffs concede that MDMCR is a "religious non profit corporation of the State of California," Doc # 1 at 3, and is not represented by counsel. Doc # 45. Moreover, in their opposition, plaintiffs express an unwillingness to obtain ... ...
-
In re LT Ruth Coal Co., Inc., Bankruptcy No. 84-00197
... ... Bankr. Act ?? 38, 39(c), 11 U.S.C. ?? 66, 67(c), as amended by Act of July 14, 1960, 74 Stat. 528; 2A Collier on Bankruptcy ? 39.29 (14th ed.); 8 Remington on Bankruptcy ? 3406 (6th ed.), cummulative supplement; In re Highley, 459 F.2d 554 (9th Cir.1972); In re General Insecticide Co., 403 F.2d 629 (2d Cir.1968); In re Imperial "400" Nat. Inc., 391 F.2d 163 (3rd Cir.1968); In re Acme Furnace Fitting Co., 302 F.2d 318 (7th Cir.1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 853, 83 S.Ct. 89, 9 L.Ed.2d 88, reh'g denied, 371 U.S ... ...
-
Oahu Plumbing and Sheet Metal, Ltd. v. Kona Const., Inc., 6823
... ... 738, 6 L.Ed. 204 (1824); In re Victor Publishers, Inc., 545 F.2d 285, 286 (1st Cir. 1976); Strong Delivery Ministry Association v. Board of Appeals, 543 F.2d 32, 33 (7th Cir. 1976); Securities and Exchange Commission v. Research Automation Corp., 521 F.2d 585, 589 (2d Cir. 1975); In re Highley, 459 F.2d 554, 555 (9th Cir. 1972); Siegel [60 Haw. 375] v. William E. Bookhultz & Sons, Inc., 136 U.S.App.D.C. 138, 139, 419 F.2d 720, 721 (1969); United States v. 9.19 Acres of Land, 416 F.2d 1244, 1245 (6th Cir. 1969); Simbraw, Inc. v. United States, 367 F.2d 373 (3d Cir. 1966); DeVilliers v ... ...
-
Su v. Alaska Goldmine LLC
... ... 1997); C.E ... Pope Equity Trust v. United States , 818 F.2d ... 696, 697-98 (9th Cir. 1987) ... [ 51 ] See Church of the New ... Testament v. United States , 783 F.2d 771, 773 (9th Cir ... 1986) (unincorporated associations); In re Highley , ... 459 F.2d 554, 555 (9th Cir. 1972) (corporations); see In ... re Am. West Airlines , 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994) ... (per curium) (partner); United States v. High ... Country Broad. Co., Inc. , 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir ... 1993) (per curium) ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...335 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2003): 2–18 n.113; 12–18 n.97 Hernandez v. Johnson, 108 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 1997): 7–114 n.979 Highley, In re, 459 F.2d 554 (9th Cir. 1972): 2–4 n.19 Hirschkop v. Snead, 594 F.2d 356 (4th Cir. 1979): 8–24 n.203 Horaist v. Doctor's Hosp. of Opelousas, 255 F.3d 261 (5th ......
-
§2.1 State Admission to Practice
...137 Wn.2d 93. 19.E.g., Oahu Plumbing & Sheet Metal, Ltd. v. Kona Constr. Inc., 60 Haw. 372, 590 P.2d 570 (1979); In re Highley, 459 F.2d 554, 555 (9th Cir. 1972); see generally Wolfram, at 803-04, 840-41; Timothy G. Cotner, May a Corporation Act as Its Own Attorney?, 16 CLEV.-MARSHALL L. RE......