In re Donoho

15 Citing cases

  1. Whitney Lane Holdings, LLC v. Don Realty, LLC

    1:08-cv-775 (GLS/RFT) (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2010)   Cited 14 times

    Other courts, however, have taken the view that the well-pleaded complaint rule applies only when assessing § 1334's "arising in" or "arising under" bankruptcy jurisdiction, and has little context or practicality when applied to "related to" jurisdiction. See, e.g., In re Donoho, 402 B.R. 687, 697 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2009) (analyzing split amongst courts and deciding that the well-pleaded complaint rule does not apply when a bankruptcy removal is predicated on "related to" jurisdiction); In re Brooks Mays Music Co., 363 B.R. 801, 815 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2007) (explaining the impracticality of assessing "related to" bankruptcy jurisdiction from the face of a complaint); Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Int'l Bus. Mach. Corp., 2006 WL 2769944, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2006).

  2. Whitlock v. Nev. Capital Ins. Co.

    Case No. 2:13-cv-01015-APG-VCF (D. Nev. Aug. 6, 2013)

    " Some courts have held that, taken together, these rules indicate the notice of removal should be filed with the bankruptcy clerk, not the district court clerk. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Brennan Title Co. (In re Donoho), 402 B.R. 687, 691-93 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2009) (explaining the differing interpretations of Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027). Similarly, some courts have held that removal petitions for bankruptcy-related cases must be filed with the bankruptcy court if the district has a standing order of reference for bankruptcy proceedings (as Nevada does). Braden Partners, L.P., v. Hometech Med. Servs., Inc., 2003 WL 223423 at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2003) ("Where local rules provide that all bankruptcy proceedings . . . are referred to the Bankruptcy Court, removal applications must be directed to the Bankruptcy Court."

  3. WISPer Ventures Leasing, LLC v. Pixus Commc'ns LLC (In re Pixius Commc'ns, LLC)

    Case No. 19-11749 (Bankr. D. Kan. Jun. 11, 2020)

    A majority of courts have concluded that direct removal to the bankruptcy court is permissible because, inter alia, the bankruptcy court constitutes a "unit" of the district court, such that removal of a claim or cause of action directly to the bankruptcy court is the "functional equivalent" of removal to the district court. See, e.g., Indus. Clearinghouse, Inc. v. Mims (In re Coastal Plains, Inc.), 338 B.R. 703, 710-12 (N.D.Tex.2006) (following majority view and citing 28 U.S.C. § 151); Bank of America, N.A. v. Brennan Title Co. (In re Donoho), 402 B.R. 687, 692 (Bankr.E.D.Va.2009) (collecting cases). Other courts note that notices of removal are properly filed directly in the bankruptcy court if the district court has entered a general order of reference to the bankruptcy court.

  4. In re Landamerica Financial Group, Inc.

    Case No. 08-35994-KRH Adv. Proc. No. 10-03168 (Bankr. E.D. Va. Jan. 21, 2011)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that the well-pleaded complaint rule does not apply in the case of "related to" jurisdiction

    There, Judge Mitchell held that "the well-pleaded complaint rule does not apply in the context of bankruptcy removals, at least when removal is predicated on the bankruptcy court having `related to' jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334." Bank of America, N.A. v. Brennan Title Co. (In re Donoho), 402 B.R. 687, 697 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2009). The Court finds no reason to depart from Judge Mitchell's cogent arguments.

  5. Great W. Bank v. Clear Vision Express Tucson 2 LLC

    No. CV-21-00883-PHX-MTL (D. Ariz. Oct. 6, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Some courts have allowed direct removal to the bankruptcy court because the bankruptcy court derives its jurisdiction from the district court, such that removal of a claim directly to the bankruptcy court is the “functional equivalent” of removal to the district court. Bank of America, N.A. v. Brennan Title Co. (In re Donoho), 402 B.R. 687, 692 (Bankr.E.D.Va.2009) (collecting cases). Arizona has a general order of reference to the bankruptcy court.

  6. Martin v. Chrysler Grp., LLC

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:12-cv-00060 (W.D. Va. Sep. 20, 2013)   Cited 6 times
    Applying Rule 9027 to action removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1452

    Creasy v. Coleman Furniture Corp., 763 F.2d 656, 658, n. 1 (4th Cir. 1985) ("The statutory requirements for the removal of state court actions related to bankruptcy cases are now contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1452 . . . ."); see also In re Rife, 343 B.R. 552 (Bkrtcy. W.D. Va. 2006); In re Donoho, 402 B.R. 687 (Bkrtcy. E.D. Va. 2009); Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 251 B.R. 322 (S.D. W.Va. 2000). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a), "[a] party may remove any claim or cause of action in a civil action . . . to the district court for the district where such civil action is pending, if such district court has jurisdiction of such claim or cause of action under section 1334 of this title."

  7. In re Landamerica Fin. Grp. Inc.

    Case No. SACV 11-770 CAS (C.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2011)

    Finally, courts, including the Virginia Bankruptcy Court in this case, have held that the well-pleaded complaint rule does not apply to bankruptcy removals predicated on "related to" jurisdiction and that therefore a bankruptcy court may properly address federal question jurisdiction. See Bank of America, N.A. v. Brennan Tit. Co., 402 B.R. 687, 697 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2009) ("[T]he well-pleaded complaint rule does not apply in the context of bankruptcy removals, at least when removal is predicated on the bankruptcy court having 'related to' jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334."); Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. v. IBM Corp., 2006 WL 2769944, *8 (E.D. Cal. 2006) ("[T]he court declines to apply the well-pleaded complaint rule to cases brought to federal court under bankruptcy jurisdiction."). Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court did not err in addressing the merits of this Court's federal question jurisdiction under ERISA.

  8. LMRT Associates, LC v. MB Airmont Farms, LLC

    447 B.R. 470 (E.D. Va. 2011)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that it was preferable "as a matter of comity" for bankruptcy court where defendant improperly removed pending breach of contract action from the Eastern District of Virginia to the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland, to determine if remand is appropriate

    See, e.g., In re Coastal Plains, Inc., 338 B.R. 703, 711 (N.D.Tex.2006) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 151); see also In re Donoho, 402 B.R. 687, 692 (Bankr.E.D.Va.2009) (collecting cases). On the other hand, a minority of courts have adopted a plain reading of § 1452 and held that because the statute only references removal " to the district court," removal directly to the bankruptcy court is not contemplated or permitted.

  9. McKinstry v. Sergent

    442 B.R. 567 (E.D. Ky. 2011)   Cited 23 times
    Referring motion to remand or abstain to bankruptcy court

    In fact, these courts continue, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure purportedly require notice of removal to be filed with the bankruptcy clerk. In re Donoho, 402 B.R. 687, 692 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2009). And they add that parties routinely file bankruptcy petitions directly in bankruptcy, notwithstanding § 1334's grant of original jurisdiction to district courts.

  10. Murray v. Dinsmore & Shohl, L (In re Murray Energy Holdings Co.)

    No. 19-56885 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio Aug. 30, 2024)

    For other cases so holding, see Whitney Lane Holdings, LLC v. Don Realty, LLC, No. 1:08-CV-775 GLS/RFT, 2009 WL 6315323, at *11 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2009), report and recommendation adopted in part, rejected in part, No. 08-CV-775 (GKS.RFT), 2010 WL 1257879 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2010); Bank of Am. v. Brennan Title Co. (In re Donoho), 402 B.R. 687, 697 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2009); Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp., No. CIV-F-06-0680 AWI SM, 2006 WL 2769944, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2006); Principal Life Ins. Co. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (In re Brook Mays Music Co.), 363 B.R. 801, 814-15 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2007); Newby v. Enron Corp. (In re Enron Corp. Sec., Derivative & "ERISA" Litig.), 511 F.Supp.2d 742, 764 (S.D. Tex. 2005). Other courts have held that the well-pleaded complaint rule applies to matters over which bankruptcy courts have related-to jurisdiction.