From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carroll v. Stettler

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Nov 12, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-2262 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 12, 2010)

Summary

finding individual defendants were those who benefited from the transfer because "one possible manner in which to demonstrate benefit from the transaction is ownership over the corporation receiving the transaction"

Summary of this case from Sugartown Worldwide LLC v. Shanks

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-2262.

November 12, 2010


ORDER


AND NOW, this 12th day of November, 2010, upon consideration of the defendants MJD Investments, LLC and Michael DeBronzo's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint (Docket No. 17), the opposition, and reply thereto, and defendants Rabbit2007, Inc. and Ian Virgin's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint (Docket No. 193), and the opposition thereto, and for the reasons set forth in a memorandum of today's date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that said motions are DENIED.


Summaries of

Carroll v. Stettler

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Nov 12, 2010
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-2262 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 12, 2010)

finding individual defendants were those who benefited from the transfer because "one possible manner in which to demonstrate benefit from the transaction is ownership over the corporation receiving the transaction"

Summary of this case from Sugartown Worldwide LLC v. Shanks

declining to require such a traceable relationship and collecting cases

Summary of this case from Wagner v. Feld

declining to require such a traceable relationship and collecting cases

Summary of this case from Wagner v. Feld

declining to address a veil-piercing claim in considering a motion to dismiss because the plaintiffs alleged sufficient facts to hold defendants liable under PUFTA

Summary of this case from Schwartzman v. Rogue Int'l Talent Grp., Inc.

declining to require such a traceable relationship and collecting cases

Summary of this case from Wagner v. Oliva (In re Vaughan Co.)

declining to require such a traceable relationship and collecting cases

Summary of this case from Wagner v. Oliva (In re Vaughan Co.)
Case details for

Carroll v. Stettler

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS CARROLL, et al. v. WILLIAM STETTLER, III, et al

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Nov 12, 2010

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-2262 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 12, 2010)

Citing Cases

Wagner v. Oliva (In re Vaughan Co.)

See Perkins, 661 F.3d at 626 (noting that transfers must be made "in furtherance of the [Ponzi] scheme" to…

Wagner v. Oliva (In re Vaughan Co.)

See Perkins, 661 F.3d at 626 (noting that transfers must be made “in furtherance of the [Ponzi] scheme” to…