29 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Edwards
514 U.S. 300 (1995) Cited 1,488 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"
Parmalat Capital Finance v. Bank of America
639 F.3d 572 (2d Cir. 2011) Cited 153 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that it was "not difficult to conclude that the ‘conceivable effect’ test is satisfied" in an action brought by a trustee under state law to recover assets for a bankruptcy estate
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 Fairfield Sentry Ltd., et al. Litigation
458 B.R. 665 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) Cited 85 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that unjust enrichment claim was a state law claim not created by federal bankruptcy law
Parmalat Capital Fin. Ltd. v. Bank of America Corp.
671 F.3d 261 (2d Cir. 2012) Cited 38 times
Finding when mandate “focus[es] entirely on [one] question” other “alternative, dispositive bases” are “ ‘impliedly decided’ ”
Section 1334 - Bankruptcy cases and proceedings
28 U.S.C. § 1334 Cited 40,798 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 1452 - Removal of claims related to bankruptcy cases
28 U.S.C. § 1452 Cited 2,578 times 14 Legal Analyses
Granting removal power to any “party” in a bankruptcy case

Evolution Capital Management, LLC et al v. CDC Software Corporation et al

29 Cited authorities

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 it was "not difficult to conclude that the ‘conceivable effect’ test is satisfied" in an action brought by a trustee under state law to recover assets for a bankruptcy estate

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 unjust enrichment claim was a state law claim not created by federal bankruptcy law

Finding when mandate “focus[es] entirely on [one] question” other “alternative, dispositive bases” are “ ‘impliedly decided’ ”

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"

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