  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) to a bankruptcy adversary proceeding for determining the same or substantially similar causes of action.)
Mintze v. American Gen. Fin. Svcs., Inc. (In re Mintze), 434 F.3d 222 (3d Cir. Jan. 10, 2006) (Bankruptcy Court erred in denying creditor's motion to compel arbitration of debtor's adversary proceeding seeking to rescind loan agreement containing arbitration provision. The adversary proceeding did not raise a statutory claim under the Bankruptcy Code, so no inherent conflict existed between arbitration of the debtor's claims and the underlying purposes of the Bankruptcy Code.)
U.S. v. Gurley, 434 F.3d 1064 (8th Cir. Jan 20 2006) (After debtor objected to a creditor's proof of claim and moved to withdraw the reference and litigate in District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), District Court retained jurisdiction to issue summary judgment against debtor on claim objection pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1334(b), despite creditor's never having filed complaint or having served debtor.)
In re Valdez Fisheries Development Association, Inc., 439 F.3d 545 (9th Cir. Feb. 22, 2006) (Bankruptcy Court did not retain "related-to" jurisdiction to interpret settlement agreement between two creditors, where the underlying bankruptcy case had since been closed and dismissed, and where dispute at issue would not affect the bankruptcy estate. District Court erred in ruling that Bankruptcy Court retained ancillary jurisdiction from having approved the settlement agreement pre-dismissal, where no order of the Bankruptcy Court stated that it would retain jurisdiction.)
In re Lowenbraun, 453 F.3d 314 (6th Cir. July 6, 2006) (Libel claim against counsel for Chapter 7 Trustee for allegations of fraudulent transfer was "core" proceeding and not subject to mandatory abstention pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2), because counsel's actions were in furtherance of the administration of the estate, and the fraudulent transfer claim was made in course of the bankruptcy case.)
Stoe v. Flaherty, 436 F.3d 209 (3rd Cir. Jan. 23, 2006) (District Court erred in its determination that 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2) does not apply to removed cases. District Court further erred in ruling that a back wages case against a bankrupt debtor but based solely on Pennsylvania's Wage Payment and Collection Law "arises under" or "arises in" a bankruptcy case, even where the defenses are related to federal bankruptcy law, because it was not the type of claim that could only be entertained in bankruptcy.)
28 U.S.C. 1452(a) Removal
City & County of San Francisco v. PG & E Corp., 433 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2006) (Government action that included restitution claim to recover for
