Case Name: BG REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. and HAOBIGP, LLC as General Partner of Elmwood Corporate Park Limited Partnership v. RHINO SYSTEMS OF CANADA, INC., Grand Point Industries, Inc., Scottsdale Insurance Company and Summit Consulting, Inc. and XYZ Insurance Company, Inc.; BG Real Estate Services, Inc. and HAO-BIGP, LLC as General Partner of Elmwood Corporate Park Limited Partnership v. Rhino Systems of Texas, Inc., Grand Point Industries, Inc., Scottsdale Insurance Company and XYZ Insurance Company, Inc.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2012-02-17
Citations: 82 So. 3d 289
Docket Number: No. 2011-C-2761
Parties: BG REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. and HAOBIGP, LLC as General Partner of Elmwood Corporate Park Limited Partnership v. RHINO SYSTEMS OF CANADA, INC., Grand Point Industries, Inc., Scottsdale Insurance Company and Summit Consulting, Inc. and XYZ Insurance Company, Inc. BG Real Estate Services, Inc. and HAO-BIGP, LLC as General Partner of Elmwood Corporate Park Limited Partnership v. Rhino Systems of Texas, Inc., Grand Point Industries, Inc., Scottsdale Insurance Company and XYZ Insurance Company, Inc.
Judges: 
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 82
Pages: 289–289

Head Matter:
BG REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. and HAOBIGP, LLC as General Partner of Elmwood Corporate Park Limited Partnership v. RHINO SYSTEMS OF CANADA, INC., Grand Point Industries, Inc., Scottsdale Insurance Company and Summit Consulting, Inc. and XYZ Insurance Company, Inc. BG Real Estate Services, Inc. and HAO-BIGP, LLC as General Partner of Elmwood Corporate Park Limited Partnership v. Rhino Systems of Texas, Inc., Grand Point Industries, Inc., Scottsdale Insurance Company and XYZ Insurance Company, Inc.
No. 2011-C-2761.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Feb. 17, 2012.

Opinion:
In re BG Real Estate Services Inc. et al.; Elmwood Corporate Park Limited Partnership; HAOBIGP L.L.C.; — Plaintiffs); Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. G, Nos. 569-233, 578-518; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. ll-CA-163, ll-CA-164.
Denied.