In re: Howard Samuels

Filing 19

ORDER ON APPELLANT HOWARD SAMUELS' APPEAL OF BANKRUPTCY COURT'S RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS ADVERSARY PROCEEDING by Judge George H. Wu. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Bankruptcy Court's ruling that collateral estoppel bars Appellant from raising the issue of Appellees standing to pursue their claims is reversed and the issue is remanded for the bankruptcy court to determine on the merits whether Appellees in fact have standing to pursue their claims against Appellant; 2. The bankruptcy court's determination that judicial estoppel does not bar Appellees' damages claims is affirmed; and 3. The Courts tentative ruling, which became the Order of the Court, is attached to Docket Entry No. 17. (lom)

JS-6
1 OLIVIER A. TAILLIEU (SBN 206546)

[e-mail]

2 RAFFI V. ZEROUNIAN (SBN 236388)

[e-mail]

3 THE TAILLIEU LAW FIRM LLP

450 N. Roxbury Drive, Suite 700

4 Beverly Hills, California 90210

Telephone: [phone]

5 Facsimile: [phone]

6 Attorneys for Appellant Howard Samuels
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11 In re

U.S.D.C. Case No. CV 14-2205-GW

12 HOWARD SAMUELS,

Debtor.

Bankruptcy Court Case No. 2:12-bk12287-ER

13
14 ALEXANDER D. SHOHET and
15

BERNADINE F. FRIED,
Plaintiffs,

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

v.
HOWARD SAMUELS,
Defendant.

Adv. Proc. No. 2:12-ap-01834-ER
ORDER ON APPELLANT HOWARD
SAMUELS’ APPEAL OF
BANKRUPTCY COURT’S RULING
ON MOTION TO DISMISS
ADVERSARY PROCEEDING

ORDER

1
2

HOWARD SAMUELS Appeal of Bankruptcy Court’s Ruling on Motion to

3 Dismiss Adversary Proceeding came on for hearing before Judge George H. Wu of
4 the United States District Court, Central District of California on July 10, 2014.
5

The Court adopted the tentative ruling as its final ruling.

6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1.

The Bankruptcy Court’s ruling that collateral estoppel bars Appellant

8 from raising the issue of Appellees’ standing to pursue their claims is reversed and
9 the issue is remanded for the bankruptcy court to determine on the merits whether
10 Appellees in fact have standing to pursue their claims against Appellant;
11

2.

The bankruptcy court’s determination that judicial estoppel does not

12 bar Appellees’ damages claims is affirmed; and
13

3.

The Court’s tentative ruling, which became the Order of the Court, is

14 attached to Docket Entry No. 17.
15
16
17
18
19

Dated: July 30, 2014

By:
Honorable George H. Wu
Judge of the United States District
Court, Central District of California

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2