United States Fifth Circuit
ARNOLD v. GARLOCK, INC., 01-41366, 01-11481, 01-51209, 01-51241
On motion for a discretionary stay of proceedings in numerous claims for asbestos exposure pending defendants' appeal of denial of motions to transfer after filing for bankruptcy, defendant failed to demonstrate that a transfer was proper; 11 U.S.C. section 362 is not generally a valid basis on which to stay actions against non-debtors.
Appellate Information
- Decided 04/10/2002
- Published 04/10/2002
Judges
- PER CURIAM:, Before DeMOSS, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Court
- United States Fifth Circuit
Counsel
- For Appellant:
- Brent M. Rosenthal, Baron & Budd, Dallas, TX, for Baron & Budd, PC and Provost & Umphrey, Law Offices, LLP, Amici Curiae., John A. Cowan, Provost & Umphrey, Beaumont, TX, for Provost & Umphrey, Amicus Curiae., Elihu Inselbuch, Caplin & Drysdale, New York City, Peter Van Lockwood, Trevor W. Swett, III, Caplin & Drysdale, Washington, DC, for Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants of Federal-Mogul Global Inc., Amicus Curiae.
- For Appellees:
- Charles S. Siegel,Peter A. Kraus, Waters & Kraus, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellees., Shelby A. Jordan, Harlin C. Womble, Jr., Nathaniel Peter Holzer, Jordan, Hyden, Womble & Culbreth, Corpus Christi, TX, Mitchell C. Chaney, Eduardo Roberto Rodriguez, Rodriguez, Colvin & Chaney, Brownsville, TX, Michael H. Reed, Anne Marie Schwab, Pepper Hamilton, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant-Appellant.