Orion Pictures Corp., 4 F.3d 1095, 1102 (2nd Cir. 1993); Beard v. Braunstein, 914 F.2d 434, 443 (3rd Cir. 1990); Diamond Mortgage Corp. of Illinois v. Sugar, 913 F.2d 1233, 1239 (7th Cir. 1990); In re Burger Boys, Inc., 183 B.R. 682, 687 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); In re White, 172 B.R. 841, 844 (S.D.Miss. 1994); In re Durso Supermarkets, Inc., 170 B.R. 211, 214 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); Williams v. Chism, 164 B.R. 735, 736 (N.D.Miss. 1994); In re Baldwin Park Inn Assocs., 144 B.R. 475, 481 (C.D.Cal. 1992); Seale v. Owens O-M Management Group, Inc., 134 B.R. 181, 184 (E.D.La. 1991); Lone Star Indus., Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 131 B.R. 269, 272 (D.Del. 1991); Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc. v. Vigilant Ins. Co., 130 B.R. 405, 408 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); In re J.T. Moran Fin. Corp., 124 B.R. 931, 939 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); In re Delaware Hudson Ry. Co., 122 B.R. 887, 894 (D.Del. 1991); In re Vylene Enters, Inc., 122 B.R. 747, 753 (C.D.Cal. 1990); In re New York City Shoes, Inc., 122 B.R. 668, 672 (E.D.Pa. 1990); In re Haugen, 120 B.R. 124, 126 (D.N.D. 1990); In re Marshall, 118 B.R. 954, 959 (W.D.Mich. 1990); Borne v. New Orleans Health Care, Inc., 116 B.R. 487, 495 (E.D.La. 1990); In re Second Pine, Inc., 107 B.R. 48, 49 (E.D.Pa. 1989); Manley Truck Line, Inc. v. Mercantile Bank of Kansas City, 106 B.R. 696, 697 (D.Kan. 1989); In re Marine Iron Shipbuilding Co., 104 B.R. 976, 979 (D.Minn. 1989); Borintex Mfg. Corp. v. Banco Gubernamental de Fomento Para Puerto Rico, 102 B.R. 8, 9 (D.P.R. 1989); Bates Rogers Constr. Corp. v. Continental Bank, N.A., 97 B.R. 905, 907 (N.D.Ill. 1989); In re M.S.V., Inc., 97 B.R. 721, 725 (D.Mass. 1989); In re Quality Care Medical Equip. Co., Inc., 92 B.R. 117, 122 (E.D.Pa. 1988); Crossley v. Lieberman, 90 B.R. 682, 690 (E.D.Pa. 1988); In re Chiodo, 88 B.R. 780, 782 (W.D.Tex. 1988); Kadel v. Thompson, 84 B.R. 878, 879 (N.D.Ga. 1988); Lower Brule Const. Co. v. Sheesley's Plumbing Heating Co., 84 B.R. 638, 643 (D.S.D. 1988); In re Landbank Equity Corp., 77 B.R. 44, 47 (E.D.Va. 1987); In re Global Intern.
The district court affirmed that decision by order filed October 18, 1990. See Haugen v. Butler Mach., Inc., 120 B.R. 124 (Bankr.D.N.D. 1990) (Jt.App. at 45). Haugen then filed a complaint in Ward County District Court, raising the same claims raised in his adversary action.
See e.g., Deitz v. Spangenberg, 2013 WL 883464, at *5 (Mar. 8, 2013); In re Jumuna Real Estate, LLC, 357 B.R. 324, 332 (E.D. Pa. 2006); In re Windsor Comm. Grp., Inc., 79 B.R. 210, 211 (E.D. Pa. 1987); In re Naturally Beautiful Nails, Inc., 252 B.R. 574, 576 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2000); In re Haugen, 120 B.R. 124, 126 (D.N.D. 1990); In re CIS Corp., 172 B.R. 748, 758 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); Meadowlands Comm. V. Banker's Trust Co., 79 B.R. 198, 200 (D.N.J. 1987); In re Reda, Inc., 60 B.R. 178, 181 (Bankr. N.D.Ill. 1986).
Where, as here, a claim sounds in state law and bears a limited connection to a debtor's bankruptcy case, abstention is "particularly compelling." Southerland v. Smith, 142 B.R. 980, 982 (M.D.Fla., 1992), citing In re Haugen, 120 B.R. 124, 127 (D.N.D. 1990). Plaintiffs' personal injury claims involve entirely state law issues.
August 14, 1991 Bankruptcy Court Order. Where a court proceeding sounds in state law and bears a limited connection to a debtor's bankruptcy case, abstention is particularly compelling. In re Haugen, 120 B.R. 124, 127 (D.N.D.1990). The Bankruptcy Court also based its decision to abstain on the principles of venue and forum non conveniens.
Indeed, the weight of authority is in Defendants' favor. See In re Windsor Comm. Grp., Inc., 79 B.R. 210, 211 (E.D.Pa. 1987) (referencing remanded opinion wherein conversion claim deemed non-core); In re Naturally Beautiful Nails, Inc., 252 B.R. 574, 576 (M.D.Fla. 2000) (same); In re Haugen, 120 B.R. 124, 126 (D.N.D. 1991) (same); In re CIS, Inc., 172 B.R. 748, 758 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) ("Claims asserting the unlawful conversion of property unquestionably arise under state law and are considered non-core proceedings."); Meadowlands Comm. v. Banker's Trust Co., 79 B.R. 198, 200 (D.N.J. 1987) (conversion action brought by debtor was non-core); In re Reda, Inc., 60 B.R. 178, 181 (Bankr.N.D.Ill. 1986) (same); see also Van Dorn Retail Mgmt., Inc. v. Sovran Bank/DC National, 1991 WL 222061 *4 n. 2 (D.D.C.) (noting in dictum that conversion claims are generally recognized as non-core). Accordingly, the Court finds that the conversion claim is non-core.
The real parties in interest are non-debtors. National, Southern and NMBC cite a number of cases which they say support abstention in this case: Earle Indus., Inc. v. Circuit Eng'g, Inc. (In re Earle Indus., Inc.), 72 B.R. 131 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1987), Gober v. Terra + Corp. (In re Gober), 100 F.3d 1195 (5th Cir. 1996), Haugen v. Butler Machinery, Inc. (In re Haugen), 120 B.R. 124 (D.N.D. 1990), Richmond Tank Car Co. v. CTC Investments (In re Richmond Tank Car Co.), 119 B.R. 124 (S.D. Tex. 1989), In re Oliver's Stores, Inc., 107 B.R. 40 (D.N.J. 1989) and First Nat'l Bank of Westminster v. Rarick (In re Rarick), 132 B.R. 47 (D. Colo. 1991). They also urge Burford abstention.
See, e.g., In re Haugen, 120 B.R. 124, 127 (D.N.D. 1990); In re Marine Iron Shipbuilding Co., 104 B.R. 976, 988 (D.Minn. 1989); and Shaford Cos., supra, 52 B.R. at 837. It is certainly true that the principle of centering litigation in the bankruptcy court is lost if the proceeding must be tried in some other forum, be it the district court or the state courts.