Patricia Kratz v. Boudreau & Associates, et al., 2017 DNH 153 (2017)

Citation: Patricia Kratz v. Boudreau & Associates, et al., 2017 DNH 153 (2017)
Parent Document: Patricia Kratz v. Boudreau & Associates, et al., 2017 DNH 153 (2017)
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date: 2017-08-22
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10699202/patricia-kratz-v-boudreau-asso... ↗

Full Text

1,080 chars

“[t]he ultimate inquiry always remains whether the
     imposition of the particular legal obligation at issue
     would be equitable and in keeping with federal
     policy.” Prince [v. Kids Ark Learning Ctr., LLC, 622
     F.3d 992, 995 (8th Cir. 2010)] (quoting Cobb v.
     Contract Transp., Inc., 452 F.3d 543, 554 (6th Cir.
     2006)). Before imposing successor liability, a court
     must balance the plaintiff's interests, the
     defendant's interests, and federal policy. See Cobb,
     452 F.3d at 554. Imposing successor liability is
     appropriate only if it “strike[s] a proper balance
     between on the one hand preventing wrongdoers from
     escaping liability and on the other hand facilitating
     the transfer of corporate assets to their most
     valuable uses.” EEOC v. Vucitech, 842 F.2d 936, 944–
     45 (7th Cir. 1988). Nutt v. Kees, 796 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2015). Here, both parties focus on the critical issue of notice. “The notice requirement is animated by concerns that it is inequitable to impose successor liability upon an innocent

Other Sections in This Document (345)

Full Text