1 Newman s Objection is Dead; Long Live Newman s Objection! Sebastian Lutz * Preprint: Abstract There are two ways of reading Newman s objection to Ru...
1 Case 2:14-cv DDC Document 132 Filed 10/12/15 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS KAIL MARIE and MICHELLE L. B...
1 MECOSTA COUNTY FRIEND OF THE COURT 49 TH Circuit Court, 400 Elm, PO Box 508, Big Rapids MI Telephone , Fax OBJECTION TO REFEREE S RECOMMENDED ORDER ...
1 The Many Gods Objection to Pascal s Wager A Defeat, Then a Resurrection Craig Duncan 1 Famously, Pascal s Wager purports to show that a prudentially...
1 D The RCA Insurance Group RESTAURANT/TAVERN APPLICATION (Rev08/2014) Home Office: 1333 Broad Street Clifton, New Jersey Clifton Fax: Branch Office...
1 A NOV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS KITE'S BAR & GRILL, INC. D/B/A KITE'S GRILL & BAR Appellant v. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REV...
1 Providence College History Student Papers History Fall 2015 Brewing Identity: The Tavern s Imprint on the American Revolution Cailin Edgar Providenc...
1 6 On the Luck Objection to Libertarianism David Widerker and Ira M. Schnall 1 Introduction Libertarians typically believe that we are morally respon...
1 Mooikloof FROM THE HORSE S MOUTH I s s u e T H E O F F I C I A L P U B L I C A T I O N O F T H E M O O I K L O O F O W N E R S A S S O C I A T I O N...
1 From A Companion to the Problem of Evil, ed. Justin P. McBrayer and Daniel Howard-Snyder (Wiley-Blackwell, 2013), Chapter 28 The Moral Skepticism Ob...
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Chapter 11 Case No. 09-50026 (REG)
In re MOTORS LIQUIDATION COMPANY, et al., f/k/a General Motors Corp., et al., Debtors.
AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF D&M REAL ESTATE, LLC, T/A THE HORSE TAVERN & GRILL AND THE HORSE, INC., T/A THE HORSE TAVERN & GRILL’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY Judge Robert E. Gerber
D&M REAL ESTATE , LLC T/A THE HORSE TAVERN & GRILL AND THE HORSE, INC., T/A THE HORSE TAVERN & GRILL’S RESPONSE IN OBJECTION TO DEBTORS’ MOTION REGARDING ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES WILLIAM DIRK PASTORICK, ESQUIRE, an attorney admitted to practice before this Federal Court affirms the truth of the following under penalty of perjury: 1.
I am counsel for Objecting Parties, D&M Real Estate, LLC, t/a The Horse Tavern
& Grill and The Horse, Inc., t/a The Horse Tavern & Grill (hereinafter jointly referred to as “Objecting Party”) and as such I am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances of this action based upon my review of the case and the investigation materials contained therein. 2.
This Affirmation is submitted in support of Objecting Party’s Objection to the
Debtors’ Motion for Entry of Order Pursuant to 11 U.S.C §105(a) and General Order M390 Authorizing Implementation of Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures, Including Mandatory Mediation. BACKGROUND
On or about October 31, 2008, Plaintiff, Jamie Medford Frei (hereinafter
“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint sounding in personal injury/ negligence against Objecting Party in Bucks County Court of Common Pleas located in Doylestown, Pennsylvania. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was injured during a motor vehicle accident, which allegedly occurred as a result of Objecting Party’s negligence. The Complaint was assigned docket no. 2008-11271-312).
(See Plaintiff’s Complaint, of which a true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit
On or about January 20, 2009, Objecting Party filed an Answer with New Matter
to Plaintiff’s Complaint. As part of the New Matter, Objecting Party alleged that Plaintiff’s injuries were not due to the negligence of Objecting Party, but due to conduct of persons, entities and/or associations over which Objecting Party had no directional control. (See Objecting Party’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, of which a true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit “B.”) 5.
On or about January 14, 2009, Objecting Party filed a Joinder Complaint against
General Motors Corporation. (See Objecting Party’s Joinder Complaint, of which a true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit “C.”) 6.
Moving Party alleges that General Motors Corporation is responsible for the
damages alleged by the Plaintiff. Specifically, Objecting Party alleges that General Motors Corporation negligently designed and/or manufactured the vehicle that Plaintiff was operating at the time of the motor vehicle accident, which is the subject of Plaintiff’s Complaint. (See Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “C.”) 7.
On or about March 30, 2009, General Motors Corporation filed an Answer with
Amended New Matter to Objecting Party’s Joinder Complaint.
(See General Motors
Corporation’s Answer with Amended New Matter, of which a true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit “D.”) 8.
In its Amended New Matter, General Motors Corporation plead the terms of, and
incorporated, a Release executed by Plaintiff James Frei in satisfaction of his claims against General Motors Corporation arising out of the motor vehicle accident giving rise to the Moving Party’s Joinder Complaint. The dollar amount of the settlement between Plaintiff Frei and General Motors Corporation was redacted from the Release. (See Exhibit “D”). 9.
Because General Motors Corporation has already settled with Plaintiff Frei, and
the Objecting Party’s claims against General Motors Corporation are derivative of Plaintiff Frei’s claims, General Motors Corporation has already paid out any money for which it could be liable due to Plaintiff Frei’s Motor Vehicle Accident. 10.
However, if in the course of the litigation presently pending in Bucks County,
Pennsylvania, the Objecting Party and General Motors Corporation are determined to be joint tortfeasors, the Objecting Party would be entitled to a set-off, or reduction, against any judgment for which it is liable in the amount of the settlement between Plaintiff Frei and General Motors Corporation. 42 Pa.C.S.A. §8326. 11.
In order to avail itself of the set-off pursuant to the Uniform Contribution Among
Tort-feasors Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §8321, et seq., the Objecting Party will seek adjudication of General Motors Corporation as a joint tortfeasor. 12.
Following the joinder of General Motors Corporation as an Additional Defendant
in the Bucks County litigation, on or about June 1, 2009, General Motors Corporation filed a voluntary petition in this court, seeking bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11, Title 11 of the
United States Code. (See General Motors Corporation’s Notice of Bankruptcy and voluntary petition for bankruptcy, of which a true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit “E.”) 13.
Pursuant to its petition for bankruptcy protection, General Motors Corporation
advised Moving Party that any new or further action against it is stayed pursuant to Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. (See Exhibit “E” and 11 U.S.C. §362(a)(1)&(3).) 14.
On January 21, 2010, The Objecting Party filed a Motion to Lift Stay in order to
allow the underlying Bucks County, Pennsylvania, litigation to proceed in discovery. That motion is currently pending before this Court. DISCUSSION 15.
The Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Procedures proposed by Motors
Liquidation Company (f/k/a General Motors Corporation) and its affiliated debtors (hereinafter, collectively, the “Debtors”) are inappropriate for the claim filed by the Objecting Defendant. 16.
The ADR procedures are designed to achieve monetary settlements between the
Debtors and holders of Unliquidated/Liquidated Claims. 17.
Because the Debtors’ predecessor, General Motors Corporation, has already
entered into a settlement and release agreement with Plaintiff Frei in the underlying Bucks County, Pennsylvania litigation, and the the Debtors cannot be expected to offer or pay any amount toward settling the claims arising out of Plaintiff Frei’s motor vehicle accident. 18.
Placing the Objecting Party’s claim into an ADR process would unnecessarily
delay resolution of the litigation currently pending in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, without any realistic expectation that such an ADR process would resolve the dispute. WHEREFORE, the Objecting Party respectfully requests that this Honorable Court except its claim from the Debtors’ Proposed Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures.
Dated: Cherry Hill, NJ February 3, 2010 Respectfully submitted, NELSON, LEVINE, de LUCA & HORST, LLC
By: s/ William Dirk Pastorick William Dirk Pastorick, Esquire 457 Haddonfield Road Suite 710 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Attorneys for Defendant, D&M Real Estate, LLC, t/a The Horse Tavern & Grill and The Horse, Inc., t/a The Horse Tavern & Grill
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING All counsel on Master Service List VIA REGULAR MAIL William C. Roeger, Jr. Esquire William G. Roark, Esquire Hamburg, Rubin, Mulin, Maxwell & Lupin 210 W. Walnut Street P.O. Box 259 Perkasie, PA 18944 Francis J. Grey, Jr., Esquire Monica V. Pennisi Marsico, Esquire Lavin, O’Neil, Ricci, Cedrone & Disipio 190 North Independence Mall West Suite 500 6th and Race Streets Philadelphia, PA 19106
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Chapter 11 Case No. 09-50026 (REG)
MOTORS LIQUIDATION COMPANY, et al., f/k/a General Motors Corp., et al.,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, William Dirk Pastorick, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of D&M Real Estate, LLC, t/a The Horse Tavern & Grill and The Horse, Inc., t/a The Horse Tavern & Grill’s Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay was served on February 3, 2010, upon counsel listed below by United States Mail, postage prepaid.
Monica V. Pennisi Marsico, Esquire Lavin, O'Neil, Ricci, Cedrone & DiSipio Suite 500 190 North Independence Mall West 6th and Race Streets Philadelphia, PA 19106
William C. Roeger, Jr., Esquire William G. Roark, Esquire Hamburg, Rubin, Mullin, Maxwell & Lupin 210 W. Walnut Street P.O. Box 259 Perkasie, PA 18944
NELSON LEVINE de LUCA & HORST, LLC
s/ William Dirk Pastorick William Dirk Pastorick, Esq.