  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
liability of the debtors and will probably file a claim against the debtors' estate for reimbursement. Although defendant's removal was timely only as to one debtor, "related to" jurisdiction existed as to that debtor and, accordingly, gave the court power to determine plaintiff's claims concerning gas sold to all debtors. The mandatory abstention provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2) did not apply because plaintiff stated both a core claim for recovery of the proceeds of the sale from the debtors to defendant and a supplemental claim for recovery of the proceeds of the sale from defendant to third-parties. The bankruptcy court erred, however, in holding that the conversion action was automatically stayed under § 362(a). Plaintiff's claim for conversion against defendant was against a nondebtor and did not implicate the property of the debtors, so the automatic stay did not apply to it.)
Marshall v. Marshall (In re Marshall), 126 S.Ct. 1735 (U.S. May 1, 2006) (Bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over adversary proceeding in which debtor, celebrity Anna Nicole Smith, alleged that her stepson had tortiously interfered with her expected inheritance from her deceased husband. The Court of Appeals erred in finding applicable the common law probate exception to federal jurisdiction. Previous statements of the exception have been incoherent, resulting in too broad an application of the exception. The probate exception preserves state court power to exercise in rem jurisdiction over a res without interference by federal courts. So, state courts may probate or annul a will and administer a decedent's estate, and federal courts may not dispose of property that is in the custody of a state probate court. In this instance, the debtor's claims were not subject to the probate exception, however, because they did not involve administration of a will or probate of an estate. Instead, the debtor asserted a widely recognized tort, sought an in personam judgment and did not seek to reach a res in the custody of a state probate court.)
Jamaica Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Orient Shipping Rotterdam B.V. (In re Millenium Seacarriers, Inc.), 458 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. July 21, 2006) (Bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion when it assumed jurisdiction over an adversary proceeding seeking enforcement of the court's sale order or when it retained jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding after dismissing the bankruptcy case. The adversary proceeding was a core proceeding because it amounted to a request that the bankruptcy court enforce an order approving the sale of property. When the bankruptcy court dismissed the bankruptcy case and was faced with whether to retain jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding, it was required to consider four factors - judicial economy, convenience to the parties, fairness and comity - but was not required to enter explicit findings on those factors. The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in retaining jurisdiction because judicial economy and convenience to the parties were both served by the court's interpretation of its own sale order due to the court's familiarity with the facts.)
Gregory v. Finova Capital Corp., 442 F.3d 188 (4th Cir. Mar. 14, 2006) (District Court abused its discretion in finding a class action superior under Fed.
