Subject Matter Jurisdiction

JURISDICTION – SUBJECT MATTER

In re Marshall, 600 F.3d 1037, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. granted in part, 2010 WL 3053869

(Sept. 28, 2010)

Debtor’s tortious interference compulsory counterclaim against claimant was at most a

noncore proceeding that limited the bankruptcy court to making proposed findings of fact and

conclusions of law. Even though counterclaims are listed as core proceedings, a bankruptcy judge

may finally decide such a claim only if it arises under or arises in a bankruptcy. A determination

of debtor’s counterclaim was not a “necessary predicate” to the determination of the claim.)

In re Harris, 590 F.3d 730 (9th Cir. 2009)

Bankruptcy court had “arising in” jurisdiction over an action against a chapter 7 trustee

alleging breach of a postpetition settlement agreement, since the claim could not exist

independently of a bankruptcy. Bankruptcy court erroneously dismissed this case under the

Barton doctrine. The case was filed against the trustee without seeking permission of the

appointing court, but was then removed to the appointing court. Thus, the Barton doctrine did not

apply.

In re Cedar Funding, Inc., 419 B.R. 807 (9th Cir. BAP 2009)

Postpetition complaint against a chapter 11 trustee for defamation was a core proceeding,

since it arose in the bankruptcy case, and the trustee’s statements were made in furtherance of his

statutory duties.

In re Healthcentral.Com, 504 F.3d 775 (9th Cir. 2007)

BLR 9015-2(b) improperly allowed the bankruptcy judge to certify that a proceeding was

to be tried to a jury and thus the reference had to be withdrawn under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). It thus

ran afoul of the national rule, which requires that a party file a motion to withdraw and that the

district court decide the motion. However, consistent with the Seventh Amendment, the

bankruptcy judge may retain the proceeding until it is ready for trial.

Vacation Village, Inc. v. Clark County, Nev, 497 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 2007)

Debtors’ inverse condemnation suit against the county fell within “related to” jurisdiction

of the bankruptcy court, since the claims were property of the debtors’ estates.

In re Valdez Fisheries Development Ass’n, Inc., 439 F.3d 545 (9th Cir. 2006)

Bankruptcy court did not have related to jurisdiction over a lawsuit between two creditors,

where there was no confirmed plan and there was no claim that the dispute would have any effect

upon the case, which was closed.

In re Rains, 428 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2005)

Bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement, even though the

validity of the settlement was on appeal.

In re Miles, 430 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2005)

Bankruptcy court had “arising under” jurisdiction over state law tort suits removed

removed from state court, since such actions were totally preempted by § 303(i). Furthermore,

siblings of debtors had no standing to bring an action under § 303(i).

In re Sasson, 424 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2005), cert denied, 547 U.S. 1206, 126 S.Ct. 2890 (2006)

A bankruptcy court has subject matter jurisdiction to enter a money judgment in a

dischargeability proceeding, even though the underlying debt has been reduced to judgment in

state court. The judgment was obtained in 1991, but the dischargeability action wasn’t filed until

debtor filed for bankruptcy in 2001. In finding that the debtor engaged in willful and malicious

conduct in rendering the initial state court judgment uncollectible, the bankruptcy court renewed

the 1991 judgment, and tacked on interest at the federal rate for the period from 1991.

In re Pegasus Gold Corp., 394 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2005)

Tort and breach of contract action brought post confirmation by debtor and newly-formed

corporation was within the bankruptcy court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The “related to” test

was too broad in this context; rather, the inquiry was whether there was a close nexus to the

bankruptcy plan or proceeding.

In re Birting Fisheries, Inc., 300 B.R. 489 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2003)

Bankruptcy court had exclusive jurisdiction to collaterally attack state court order and

review foreign-country judgment for conflict with either confirmed chapter 11 plan or Bankruptcy

Code.

In re McCowan, 296 B.R. 1 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2003)

“We hold that a bankruptcy court has ancillary jurisdiction to enforce its money judgments

and retains such jurisdiction after the bankruptcy case is closed.”

In re Canter, 299 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2002)

District court improperly withdrew the reference under § 157(d) and enjoined municipal

court unlawful detainer action

In re Graves, 279 B.R. 266 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2002)

An injunction action under 11 U.S.C. § 110(j) is a core proceeding.

In re McGhan, 288 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2002)

“Relying on Gruntz v. County of Los Angeles, 202 F.3d 1074 (9th Cir. 2000), we hold that

state courts lack jurisdiction to determine whether a listed and scheduled creditor received

adequate notice of discharge proceedings. We also hold that the state court lacked authority to

modify the bankruptcy court’s orders discharging Rutz’s claim and permanently enjoining Rutz

from collection on the debt.”

In re Aheong, 276 B.R. 233 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2002)

Bankruptcy court had both ancillary and “arising under” jurisdiction to reopen case and

annul automatic stay.

In re Kieslich, 258 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2001)

IRS waived objection to bankruptcy court exercising noncore jurisdiction by failing to raise

it before the bankruptcy court.

In re General Carriers Corp., 258 B.R. 181 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2001)

Bankruptcy court had no jurisdiction to decide abstention motion as to state court action

that had not been removed to bankruptcy court.

In re G.I. Industries, Inc., 204 F.3d 1276 (9th Cir. 2000)

Bankruptcy court could adjudicate validity of contract when considering proof of claim

under executory agreement rejected by trustee.

In re Menk, 241 B.R. 896 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1999)

Debtor’s appeal was moot where debtor sought to avoid bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction by

contesting court’s jurisdiction to reopen case for determination of whether debtor was excepted

from discharge.

In re Mirzai, 236 B.R. 8 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1999)

Bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment where appeal from B.A.P. decision

was pending before court of appeals.

In re Silva, 185 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 1999)

The court held that under the Bankruptcy Code, core proceedings include a turnover

request alleging that property in a third party’s possession constitutes property of the bankruptcy

estate.

In re Levander, 180 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 1999)

The Court held that a bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to amend its order awarding

attorney fees to add a judgment-debtor under California law and its inherent power based on fraud

perpetrated on the court.

In re Pavelich, 229 B.R. 777 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1999)

Bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to enforce discharge in face of contrary state court

judgment

In re Audre, Inc., 216 B.R. 19 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1997)

bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to hear collateral attack on state court judgment even

though judgment was on appeal and thus not final

In re ACI-HDT Supply Company, 205 B.R. 231 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1997)

Bankruptcy Court lacked core jurisdiction over state law action for fraud.

In re Kennedy, 108 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 1997)

Bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to enter monetary judgment on disputed state court law

claim in determining debt nondischargeable (9th Cir. 1997)

Hinduja v. Arco Products Co., 102 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 1996)

Plaintiff not required to sue on stipulation for modifying stay in Bankruptcy court – could

do so in District court

In re Yochum, 89 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 1996)

Bankruptcy Court is a court of the U.S. for purposes of 26 U.S.C. 7430(c)(6)

In re Vylene Enterprises, Inc., 90 F.3d 1472 (9th Cir. 1996)

Adversary proceeding involving BREACH of a franchise agreement and BREACH of the

implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was a core proceeding under §157(b)(2)(M) since

franchise agreements were property of the estate.

In re Casamont Investors, Ltd., 196 B.R. 517 (9th Cir. 1996)

Bankruptcy court abuses discretion by retaining jurisdiction over new adversary

proceeding involving only state law after voluntary dismissal of bankruptcy case.

Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300 (1995),

Execution on appeal bond was within Bankruptcy Court’s related to jurisdiction -

injunction issued to prohibit collecting on bond had to be heeded by Court of Appeals

In re Davis, 177 B.R. 907 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1995)

Supplemental jurisdiction – UMW v. Gubb

In re Diversified Contract Services, Inc., 167 B.R. 591 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 1994)

In re Ferrante, 51 F.3d 1473 (9th Cir. 1995)

Action on a trustee’s surety bond = core proceeding

In re Harris Pine Mills, 44 F.3d 1431 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1131 (1995)

Suit against trustee arising out of post-petition sale is a core proceeding

In re Parker North American Corp., 24 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 1994)

Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction over preference suit against RTC notwithstanding

FIRREA, as least where RTC has filed a claim

In re Int’l. Nutronics, Inc., 3 F.3d 306 (9th Cir. 1993), withdrawn and superseded on rehearing by

28 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1016 (1994)

An antitrust action arising from a sale of an estate asset is not a core proceeding

In re DeLorean Motor Co., 155 B.R. 521 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1993)

Malicious prosecution suit against trustee who brought fraudulent transfer action against

plaintiff = core proceeding

In re Lawson, 156 B.R. 43 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1993)

Bankruptcy court has jurisdiction to dispose of pending and ancillary matters after the

dismissal of the bankruptcy case. Not conditioned on express language retaining jurisdiction at

least as to ancillary matters such as execution on judgments.

In re Eighty South Lake, Inc., 81 B.R. 580 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1987)

Court retains jurisdiction after dismissal to determine sanctions

In re Carraher, 971 F.2d 327 (9th Cir. 1992)

Court may retain jurisdiction over adversary proceeding even though case has been

dismissed

In re Hall Bayoutree Assoc., Ltd., 939 F.2d 802 (9th Cir. 1991)

Not improper to withdraw reference by implication but must still have cause

In re Castro, 919 F.2d 107 (9th Cir. 1990)

District Court in a noncore proceeding must make a de novo review of the case, including

consideration of the record, to satisfy Northern Pipeline’s requirement that noncore issues are to

be decided by an Article III judge.

American Principals Leasing Corp. v. U.S., 904 F.2d 477 (9th Cir. 1990)

Bankruptcy jurisdiction lacking over adjudication of tax consequences of partnership

activities or non-debtor partners’ tax liability. Section 505 does not extend to anyone but debtor.

In re American Hardwoods, 885 F.2d 621 (9th Cir. 1989)

Pacor standard adopted.

In re Balboa Improvements, Ltd., 99 B.R. 966 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1989)

Dispute between real estate broker and debtor attorney = related to jurisdiction

In re Contractors Equipment Supply Co., 861F.2d 241 (9th Cir. 1988)

Bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to hear adversary proceeding between secured creditor

and county agency since secured creditor did not own property – debtor still had interest in it.

Gonzales v. Parks,830 F.2d 1033 (9th Cir. 1987)

State courts preempted from hearing lawsuit based on bad faith filing in bankruptcy court.

In re Benny, 842 F.2d 1147 (9th Cir. Cir. 1988), cert denied 488 U.S. 1014 (1989)

Bankruptcy court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over wife in Chapter 7 case

initiated by involuntary joint petition against husband and wife.