38 Cited authorities

Martin v. Franklin Capital
546 U.S. 132 (2005) Cited 4,849 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding “absent unusual circumstances, attorney's fees should not be awarded when the removing party has an objectively reasonable basis for removal”
Celotex Corp. v. Edwards
514 U.S. 300 (1995) Cited 1,489 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a bankruptcy court could not use “jurisdictional bootstrap” to “exercise jurisdiction that would not otherwise exist”
Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca
516 U.S. 124 (1995) Cited 761 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding untimely removal is “precisely the type of removal defect contemplated by § 1447(c).”
Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins
743 F.2d 984 (3d Cir. 1984) Cited 2,317 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that where the cause of action is between third parties, the test for "whether a civil proceeding is related to bankruptcy is whether the outcome of that proceeding could conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy"
In re Cuyahoga Equip. Corp.
980 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1992) Cited 685 times
Holding that § 1334(b) jurisdiction is satisfied by either the "conceivable effect" test of Pacor or the "significant connection" test of In re Turner, 724 F.2d 338, 340-41 (2d Cir. 1983)
In re Methyl Tertiary
488 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2007) Cited 388 times
Holding that even if Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency expected defendants to use MTBE, defendants were unable to show they were "acting under federal officers when they added MTBE, and not some approved alternative, to their reformulated gasoline"
In re Midgard Corp.
204 B.R. 764 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 1997) Cited 260 times
Holding abstention orders "are final orders under the collateral order doctrine [because] [t]hey conclusively determine the disputed questions of . . . jurisdiction, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and would be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment on the merits."
In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc.
300 F.3d 368 (3d Cir. 2002) Cited 155 times
Holding that "Pacor clearly remains good law in this circuit."
In re W.R. Grace Co.
591 F.3d 164 (3d Cir. 2009) Cited 114 times
Holding that potential indemnification claim did not satisfy related-to jurisdiction, noting that "will or will not be sufficiently related to a bankruptcy to warrant the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction is a matter that must be developed on a fact-specific, case-by-case basis."
In re Manville Forest Products Corp.
209 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2000) Cited 133 times
Holding that where a contract gives a right to payment that arose before the filing of the petition, it is a claim dischargeable in bankruptcy
Section 1334 - Bankruptcy cases and proceedings
28 U.S.C. § 1334 Cited 40,812 times 57 Legal Analyses
Granting "exclusive jurisdiction" to a federal court handling a bankruptcy case "of all the property, wherever located, of the debtor as of the commencement of such case, and of property of the estate"
Section 1447 - Procedure after removal generally
28 U.S.C. § 1447 Cited 33,290 times 110 Legal Analyses
Holding that with exceptions not relevant here, "[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise"
Section 1452 - Removal of claims related to bankruptcy cases
28 U.S.C. § 1452 Cited 2,580 times 14 Legal Analyses
Granting removal power to any “party” in a bankruptcy case

Allstate Insurance Company et al v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC et al

38 Cited authorities

Holding “absent unusual circumstances, attorney's fees should not be awarded when the removing party has an objectively reasonable basis for removal”

Holding that a bankruptcy court could not use “jurisdictional bootstrap” to “exercise jurisdiction that would not otherwise exist”

Holding untimely removal is “precisely the type of removal defect contemplated by § 1447(c).”

Holding that where the cause of action is between third parties, the test for "whether a civil proceeding is related to bankruptcy is whether the outcome of that proceeding could conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy"

Holding that § 1334(b) jurisdiction is satisfied by either the "conceivable effect" test of Pacor or the "significant connection" test of In re Turner, 724 F.2d 338, 340-41 (2d Cir. 1983)

Holding that even if Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency expected defendants to use MTBE, defendants were unable to show they were "acting under federal officers when they added MTBE, and not some approved alternative, to their reformulated gasoline"

Holding that "Pacor clearly remains good law in this circuit."

Holding that potential indemnification claim did not satisfy related-to jurisdiction, noting that "will or will not be sufficiently related to a bankruptcy to warrant the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction is a matter that must be developed on a fact-specific, case-by-case basis."

Holding that where a contract gives a right to payment that arose before the filing of the petition, it is a claim dischargeable in bankruptcy

Granting "exclusive jurisdiction" to a federal court handling a bankruptcy case "of all the property, wherever located, of the debtor as of the commencement of such case, and of property of the estate"

Holding that with exceptions not relevant here, "[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise"

Granting removal power to any “party” in a bankruptcy case