From this, it is apparent that the state court dispute is intimately associated with the bankruptcy. On the "core"/"non-core" issue, Appellants also cite to McCormick v. Kochar, No. 99-5045, 1999 WL 1051776 (E.D.Pa., Nov. 19, 1999). While McCormick does discuss mandatory and equitable abstention, it does not address the issue of "core" proceedings.
6) an action is commenced, and can be timely adjudicated, in a state forum of appropriate jurisdiction.See Stoe v. Flaherty, 436 F.3d 209, 212 (3d Cir. 2006); McCormick v. Kochar, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17833 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 19, 1999); In re Donington, 194 B.R. at 757. This case obviously satisfies requirements one, two, and six.
As UVL is not a shareholder, and its claims are different from those Bennett referenced, these New Jersey state law claims can be more efficiently overseen by a New Jersey state court. See Woods v. Passodelis (In rePassodelis), 234 B.R. 52, 64 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1999) (finding mandatory abstention appropriate); McCormick v. Kochar, No. 99-5045, 1999 WL 1051776, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 19, 1999) (same). Entry of a state-court judgment on damages against Bennett may be delayed, or offset by, UVL's recovery from RCM or RFI for its loss, but that will not affect a determination on Bennett's liability here.
Nothing in this section prevents a district court in the interest of justice, or in the interest of comity with State courts or respect for State law, from abstaining from hearing a particular proceeding arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11. See e.g., McCormick v. Kochar, 1999 WL 1051776, at *1 (E.D.Pa. Nov.19, 1999). In assessing whether to abstain or to remand, a court considers the following non-inclusive factors:
In assessing whether abstention on permissive grounds is appropriate, a court considers the following non-inclusive factors: the effect on the efficient administration of the bankruptcy estate; the extent to which issues of state law predominate; the difficulty or unsettled nature of applicable state law; comity; the degree of relatedness or remoteness of the proceeding to the main bankruptcy case; the existence of a right to a jury trial; and, prejudice to the involuntarily removed defendants. See McCormick v. Kochar, 1999 WL 1051776, *2 (E.D.Pa. Nov. 19, 1999) (citations omitted). The Bankruptcy Court properly concluded that plaintiff's failure timely to file a motion to abstain coupled with the simplicity of applicable state law, the absence of any special state interest and the disruption to the administration of justice weighed strongly against abstention.
the effect on the efficient administration of the bankruptcy estate; the extent to which issues of state law predominate; the difficulty or unsettled nature of applicable state law; comity; the degree of relatedness or remoteness of the proceeding to the main bankruptcy case; the existence of a right to a jury trial; and, prejudice to the involuntarily removed defendants. In re U.S. Physicians, Inc., 2001 WL 793271, *2 (E.D.Pa. July 12, 2001) (citing McCormick v. Kochar, 1999 WL 1051776, at *2 (E.D.Pa. Nov.19, 1999)). See also In re RBGSC Inv. Corp., 253 B.R. 369, 377-78 (E.D.Pa.2000) overruled on other grounds, 544 F.3d 196 (3d Cir.2008) At least one Court has applied the same seven factors listed above to determine both discretionary abstention and equitable remand.
Renaissance Cosmetics, Inc. v. Dev. Specialists Inc., 277 B.R. 5, 14 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); WRT Creditors Liquidation Trust v. C.J. B.C. Oppenheimer Corp., 75 F. Supp. 2d 596, 605-06 (S.D. Tex. 1999). But see McCormick v. Kochar, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17833, *3 (E.D. Pa. 1999) (placing burden on party opposing abstention to demonstrate case cannot be timely adjudicated in the state court).See e.g. Janazzo v. Fleetboston Fin. Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 451, *12 (N.D. Ill. 2002); J.D. Marshall Int'l, Inc. v. Redstart, Inc., 74 B.R. 651, 654-55 (N.D. Ill. 1987); In re Georgou, 157 B.R. 847, 851 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1993).
Renaissance Cosmetics, Inc. v. Dev. Specialists Inc., 277 B.R. 5, 14 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); WRT Creditors Liquidation Trust v. C.I.B.C. Oppenheimer Corp., 75 F. Supp.2d 596, 605-06 (S.D. Tex. 1999). But see McCormick v. Kochar, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17833, *3 (E.D. Pa. 1999) (placing burden on party opposing abstention to demonstrate case cannot be timely adjudicated in the state court).See e.g. Janazzo v. Fleetboston Fin. Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 451, *12 (N.D. Ill. 2002); J.D. Marshall Int'l, Inc. v. Redstart, Inc., 74 B.R. 651, 654-55 (N.D. Ill. 1987); In re Georgou, 157 B.R. 847, 851 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1993).
Renaissance Cosmetics, Inc. v. Dev. Specialists Inc., 277 B.R. 5, 14 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); WRT Creditors Liquidation Trust v. C.I.B.C. Oppenheimer Corp., 75 F. Supp.2d 596, 605-06 (S.D.Tex. 1999). But see McCormick v. Kochar, 1999 WL 1051776, *1, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17833, *3 (E.D.Pa. 1999) (placing burden on party opposing abstention to demonstrate case cannot be timely adjudicated in the state court).See e.g. Janazzo v. Fleetboston Fin. Corp., 2002 WL 54541, *4, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 451, *12 (N.D.Ill. 2002); J.D Marshall Int'l, Inc. v. Redstart, Inc., 74 B.R. 651, 654-55 (N.D.Ill. 1987); In re Georgou, 157 B.R. 847, 851 (N.D.Ill. 1993).
Renaissance Cosmetics, Inc. v. Dev. Specialists Inc., 277 B.R. 5, 14 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); WRT Creditors Liquidation Trust v. C.I.B.C. Oppenheimer Corp., 75 F. Supp.2d 596, 605-06 (S.D.Tex. 1999). But see McCormick v. Kochar, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17833, *3 (E.D.Pa. 1999) (placing burden on party opposing abstention to demonstrate case cannot be timely adjudicated in the state court). See e.g. Janazzo v. Fleetboston Fin. Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 451, *12 (N.D.Ill. 2002); J.D Marshall Int'l, Inc. v. Redstart, Inc., 74 B.R. 651, 654-55 (N.D.Ill. 1987); In re Georgou, 157 B.R. 847, 851 (Bankr.N.D.Ill. 1993).