Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

559 F.3d 917

Docket No. 07-56537.

Sofris v. Maple-Whitworth, Inc.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued and Submitted Dec. 9, 2008.

Filed March 11, 2009.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 2009-03-11

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 2016

2 counsel of record

Applies 11 U.S.C. § 303

Relies on Sofris v. Maple-Whitworth, Inc. · Michael N. Sofris, APC v. Maple-Whitworth, Inc. (In Re Maple-Whitworth, Inc.)

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2009-03-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Michael N. Sofris, Michael N. Sofris APC, Beverly Hills, CA, for the appellant Michael N. Sofris, aka Sofris APC.

¶2Jerry Kaplan; David Scott Kadin, Kap-lan, Kenegos & Kadin, Beverly Hills, CA, for the appellee Maple-Whitworth, Inc.

¶3Before: JOHN T. NOONAN and BARRY G. SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and SUZANNE B. CONLON,* District Judge.

¶5CONLON, District Judge:

¶6This court’s February 10, 2009 opinion recounts that Sofris, joined by others in the Mayman-Nathan faction, filed an involuntary Chapter 7 petition against Maple-Whitworth under 11 U.S.C. § 303(a)-(b). Michael N. Sofris, APC v. Maple-Whitworth, Inc. (In re Maple-Whitworth, Inc.), 556 F.3d 742, 744 (9th Cir.2009). This statement adopts the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s characterization of the involuntary petition as a Chapter 7 petition. Michael N. Sofris, APC v. Maple-Whitworth, Inc. (In re Maple-Whitworth, Inc.), 375 B.R. 558, 563 (9th Cir. BAP 2007). Sofris filed a notice of errata stating that the involuntary petition was a Chapter 11 petition. No objection to the notice of errata has been filed. The record confirms that the involuntary petition sought relief under Chapter 11. The February 10, 2009 opinion is corrected to reflect that the involuntary petition invoked Chapter 11, not Chapter 7.

/559/f3d/917 · .json · Public domain