Problem
Set 41, p.833
41.1
- Claims: Want to file bankruptcy, also have defective goods claim against creditor. Who takes the case? Would the D judge or the bankruptcy judge take this?
- Seems like B judge takes it because this counterclaim against a creditor it is a core proceeding. BUT NO, Atlantic has not filed a claim so this does not meant (b)(2)(C).
- What about (b)(2)(O)? the catchall provision about the core proceedings
- Do we have an abstention issue here? Not mandatory. Not already in state court.
(2)
The second part:
- If this was a Chapter 11, still no mandatory abstention. It cannot be adjudicated timely in a state court (18 months).
- Independent federal jurisdiction? Yes, if there is the antitrust claim too. And then supplementary jurisdiction for the defective goods claim.
- Does it depend when the breach occurs? Seems like any post-petition breach would be a core proceeding. Remember Calabresi opinion.
- If you want to solve it quickly, you can settle or drop it; sell the claim?
41.2
- Title VII is federal jurisdiction. D judge case?
- Related to bankruptcy (broad interpretation from Dow Corning), but core or non-core proceeding. Is this a personal injury claim excepted from core proceedings in (b)(2)(B), (O)? What about the assault claim?
- Mandatory abstention for any of this? None of these have already been commenced in state action. Could still have discretionary abstention.
41.3
- §544(b). It is avoidable
- Is it a state cause or a federal cause of action? It is a state law. But is it also a federal cause of action? The policy reasons. §157(b)(3).
- The federal court can hear the case.
- Before a district judge or district judge? Core proceeding under §157(b)(2)(H).
- Is it subject to mandatory abstention? No. It cannot be timely adjudicated; get to trial for at least two years; not commenced in state court (and is arising under Title 11); §1334(c)(2).
- How about the discretionary abstention under §1334(c)(1)? Comity with state courts. The judge should not abstain. It is a core proceeding.
- If the opponent seeks delay, she can bring a motion for abstention. She might get the Supreme Court’s review by challenging unconstitutionality of the jurisdiction rules of the Bankruptcy Code.
41.4
- §523(a)(6): Willful and malicious injury is not dischargeable, but it is still a claim of the bankruptcy.
- Ethel's lawsuit can't go forward because of the automatic stay.
- Is it a core proceeding? §157(b)(2)(B). The personal injury is not a core proceeding.
- Is it subject to the mandatory jurisdiction under §1334(c)(2)?
- Five requirements: (1) it is a state law cause of action-torts; (2) only related to the Title 11; (3) lack of a federal JRX basis absent the bankruptcy; (4) the action is commenced; and (5) it can be timely adjudicated.
- All conditions are met.
- But §157(b)(4) clearly states that it is not subject to the mandatory abstention; but can be discretionary abstention.
- Can you appeal the order about the abstention? No. See §1334(d). By the way, the decision can only be appealed when it becomes a judgment or order.
- If we conclude no abstention, is it subject the district judge or bankruptcy judges? At least in a capacity where he passes findings of fact to the district judge? (c)(1). No. It should be adjudicated in the district court under §157(b)(5).
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment