Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
- Citation
- Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
- Parent Document
- Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
- Jurisdiction
- California (state)
- Effective Date
- 2000-05-22
Other Sections in This Document (26)
- Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
- Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
- Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
- Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
- Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
- Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
- Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
- Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
- Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
- Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
- Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
- Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
- Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
- Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
- Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
- Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
- Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
- Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
- Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
- Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
- Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
- Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
- Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
- Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
- Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
- Galan v. Wolfriver Holding Corp., 80 Cal. App. 4th 1124 (2000)
Full Text
620 charsIn the spring of 1998, the case was resolved with respect to the Lee defendants and Far East. As part of their settlement with Far East, plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the case against the Wolfriver defendants. This was significant to Far East because Wolfriver had a claim against Far East for fraud in the transfer, and Wolfriver’s claims included reimbursement for the cost of defending the lawsuit. Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss Wolfriver because Wolfriver was uninsured and it was questionable whether a judgment against Wolfriver was collectible. Plaintiffs dismissed their claims against Wolfriver without prejudice.