Pavers & Road Builders District Council Welfare Fund et al v. Core Contracting of NY, LLC et al
| Highway, Road and Street Construction Laborers Local Union 1010, Laborers International Union of North America, Keith Loscalzo, Joseph Montelle, Pavers & Road Builders District Council Annuity Fund, Pavers & Road Builders District Council Apprenticeship, Skill Improvement & Safety Fund, Pavers & Road Builders District Council Pension Fund, Pavers & Road Builders District Council Welfare Fund and The Local 1010 Apprenticeship Skill Improvement and Training Fund |
| Canal Asphalt, Inc., Columbus Construction Corp., Core Contracting of NY, LLC and Nikan Construction, Inc. |
| 1:2015cv00207 |
| January 14, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| Brian M. Cogan |
| Labor: E.R.I.S.A. |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1132 E.R.I.S.A. |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER dated 8/18/15 In short, the automatic stay is automatic as applied to a debtor because that is what the statute says. As to non-debtors, it is relief that is available, but it is not automatic. This action shall therefore continue against the non-debtors under the schedule previously set unless the Bankruptcy Court orders otherwise. ( Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 8/18/2015 ) (Guzzi, Roseann)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
