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

1,088 chars

22
     litigation is a matter of public record in a court
     docket permits the inference of notice, as does the
     expectation that normal due diligence, in the absence
     of collusion, would uncover such matters. Id. (citing
     Musikiwamba, 760 F.2d at 752 (“Normally, the burden
     [is] on the successor to find out from the predecessor
     all outstanding potential and actual liabilities.”)).
     This approach is consistent with the compelling policy
     reasons to impute constructive notice when the
     pleading is sufficient to permit the inference that
     the successor failed to exercise due diligence in “an
     unspoken but mutually understood game of ‘don't ask,
     don't tell.’” Goodpaster v. ECP Am. Steel, LLC, No.
     1:09–CV–59 JVB, 2012 WL 5267971, at *4 n.3 (N.D. Ind.
     Oct. 24, 2012); see Bautista, 2015 WL 5459737, at *8
     (“[t]he proper rule is one that encourages shoppers
     for substantial assets simply to get the whole story
     and adjust their offers accordingly”). Id. at *8.   The court went on to find that plaintiffs had

Other Sections in This Document (345)

Full Text