Filed: Jan. 13, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 13, 2015
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER JOHN E. STEELE, District Judge. On August 1, 2014, the undersigned issued an Order to Show Cause (Doc. #67) directing defendants to show cause why the case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court adopts, without repeating, the overview of the procedural history of this case as set forth in the Order to Show Cause. (Doc. #67, pp. 1-5.) Defendants filed their Response to Order to Show Cause (Doc. #70) on August 15, 2014, assertin
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER JOHN E. STEELE, District Judge. On August 1, 2014, the undersigned issued an Order to Show Cause (Doc. #67) directing defendants to show cause why the case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court adopts, without repeating, the overview of the procedural history of this case as set forth in the Order to Show Cause. (Doc. #67, pp. 1-5.) Defendants filed their Response to Order to Show Cause (Doc. #70) on August 15, 2014, asserting..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
JOHN E. STEELE, District Judge.
On August 1, 2014, the undersigned issued an Order to Show Cause (Doc. #67) directing defendants to show cause why the case should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court adopts, without repeating, the overview of the procedural history of this case as set forth in the Order to Show Cause. (Doc. #67, pp. 1-5.) Defendants filed their Response to Order to Show Cause (Doc. #70) on August 15, 2014, asserting that the federal court had subject matter jurisdiction over the case at the time of removal, and as such, continues to have jurisdiction.
With exceptions not relevant to this case, a defendant may remove a state civil cause of action to a federal district court "if such district court has jurisdiction of such claim or cause of action under section 1334 of this title." 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a). With certain exceptions, Section 1334 provides that a district court has "original and exclusive jurisdiction of all cases under title 11," 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a), and "original but not exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11," 28 U.S.C. 1334(b). Jurisdictional facts are assessed at the time of removal. Scimone v. Carnival Corp., 720 F.3d 876, 882 (11th Cir. 2013)(citations omitted). A state case which is removed to federal court may be remanded to state court "on any equitable ground." 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b).
Defendants removed the case from state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334. As the Eleventh Circuit recently stated:
Congress intended bankruptcy jurisdiction to extend to "all civil proceedings" that are "related to" bankruptcy cases. 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). In the bankruptcy context, we have interpreted "related to" jurisdiction as extending to those proceedings that "could conceivably have an effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy." Munford v. Munford, Inc. (In re Munford, Inc.), 97 F.3d 449, 453 (11th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). This extends to "suits between third parties which have an effect on the bankruptcy estate." Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300, 307 n.5 (1995) (citing Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 3.01[1] [c] [iv], p. 3-28 (15th ed. 1994)). Put another way, there must be "some nexus between the civil proceeding and the title 11 case." Munford, 97 F.3d at 453.
In re Superior Homes & Invs., LLC, 521 F. App'x 895, 898 (11th Cir. 2013). The Court finds that it had subject matter jurisdiction at the time of removal, and that jurisdiction continues to exist.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. The Court will take no further action on the Order to Show Cause (Doc. #67) as the Court finds that subject matter jurisdiction is present.
2. The Clerk is directed to randomly assign a Magistrate Judge and refer the pending motions (Docs. ## 55, 58, 65) to the Magistrate Judge for disposition.
3. The stay is hereby lifted to the extent that the Clerk shall issue the standard Standing Order, Track Two Notice, and Interested Persons Order so that the case may proceed.
4. The parties shall file a Case Management Report within the time provided by the Track Two Notice and the Local Rule.
DONE and ORDERED.
