NextPoint Advisors, L.P. et al v. Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP
| 3:2021cv03086 |
| May 9, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Dallas Office |
| Bankruptcy: Appeal 28 USC 158 |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BA |
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
37
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - Before the Court are Appellees' Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeals as Constitutionally Moot (the "Motion") (Doc. No. 14), Appellant NexPoint Advisors, L.P.'s Opposition to Appellees' Joint Motio n to Dismiss Appeals as Constitutionally Moot (the "Response") (Doc. No. 24), and Appellees' Joint Reply to Appellant's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Appeals as Constitutionally Moot (the "Reply") (Doc. No. 26). Having carefully considered the Motion, the Response, the Reply, the applicable briefs and appendices, and the applicable law, the Court finds Appellant lacks standing to appeal under this circuit"s "person aggrieved" test, and therefore GRANTS Appellees' Motion. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 5/9/2022) (chmb)
|
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 Texas Northern 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
| Search for this case: NextPoint Advisors, L.P. et al v. Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
