McCormick v. Kochar

10 Citing cases

  1. In re RBGSC Investment Corp.

    253 B.R. 369 (E.D. Pa. 2000)   Cited 21 times
    Pointing to Bankruptcy Rule 9027 and 28 U.S.C. § 1450 for rejecting comity considerations as requiring remand of an adversary proceeding due to the existence of pre-removal state court orders because both statutes provided that the bankruptcy court could dissolve or modify state court orders

    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.

  2. GSL OF ILL, LLC v. PITT PENN OIL CO., LLC

    09cv0571 (W.D. Pa. Jun. 17, 2009)   Cited 7 times
    Noting that Section 1452 "continues to allow plaintiffs to remove" actions to federal district courts.

    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.

  3. Unovalores Ltd. v. Bennett

    Civil Action No. 05-5859 (MLC) (D.N.J. Sep. 29, 2006)   Cited 1 times
    Comparing IUE-CWA Pension Fund v. Piccirilli (In re Pitt. Brewing Co.), Civ. A. No. 05-50347, 2006 WL 1666210, *3 (Bankr.W.D.Pa. June 9, 2006) with Hohl v. Bastian, 279 B.R. 165, 175 (W.D.Pa. 2002) as both cases involved indemnification clauses requiring "good faith" actions on part of the individual seeking indemnification, yet they reached differing conclusions.

    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.

  4. Shared Network Users Group, Inc v. Worlcom Technologies

    309 B.R. 446 (E.D. Pa. 2004)   Cited 17 times
    Transferring a removed state case under 28 U.S.C. 1412, holding "the overwhelmingly significant factor, outweighing all others, is the judicial economy to be achieved in having the entire controversy decided in one forum."

    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:

  5. In re U.S. Physicians, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 00-4622, (ADVERSARY No. 00-138) (E.D. Pa. Jul. 12, 2001)   Cited 4 times

    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.

  6. In re Carriage House Condominiums L.P.

    415 B.R. 133 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2009)   Cited 18 times

    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.

  7. In re Lorax Corporation

    Case No. 02-48396-DML-11, Adversary No. 03-4128 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Feb. 4, 2004)

    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).

  8. In re Lorax Corporation

    Case No. 02-48396-DML-11, Adversary No. 03-4128 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2004)

    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).

  9. In re Lorax Corp.

    295 B.R. 83 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2003)   Cited 29 times

    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).

  10. In re Lorax Corporation

    CASE NO. 02-48396-DML-11, ADVERSARY NO. 03-4128 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Jun. 26, 2003)

    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).