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

687 chars

5    As previously mentioned, “[t]he doctrine of successor
liability is premised on the idea that the creditor cannot
obtain satisfaction from the predecessor.” Brzozowski v. Corr.
Physician Servs., Inc., 360 F.3d 173, 179 (3d Cir. 2004).
Whether the predecessor is able to provide relief to the
plaintiff is a significant factor in determining whether
successor liability ought to be imposed. Because neither Kratz
nor Schlee & Stillman discuss that factor, the court assumes
their agreement that the predecessor cannot provide relief. 27
                            CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion for summary judgment (document no. 32) is DENIED. SO ORDERED.

Other Sections in This Document (345)

Full Text