9 Cited authorities

In re Pegasus Gold Corp.
394 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2005) Cited 391 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts have applied 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the supplemental jurisdiction statute, to bankruptcy courts to allow them to resolve bankruptcy claims solely based on "related to" jurisdiction
In re Ray
624 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2010) Cited 148 times
Holding that “the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction over the state[-]law breach[-]of[-]contract claims” where the claim lacked a “close nexus to the bankruptcy plan or proceeding”
Browning v. Navarro
743 F.2d 1069 (5th Cir. 1984) Cited 258 times
Holding that decision to remand is nonreviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1478(b) (superseded 1984), the predecessor of § 1452(b)
In re Valdez Fisheries Development Ass'n, Inc.
439 F.3d 545 (9th Cir. 2006) Cited 77 times
Holding that even though an agreement required the approval of the bankruptcy court, such approval alone was insufficient to retain of jurisdiction
In re Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego
374 B.R. 756 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 2007) Cited 29 times
No. 07-00939-A11. August 24, 2007 Gerald P. Kennedy, Geraldine A. Valdez, Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves and Savitch, Laura S. Taylor, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter Hampton, San Diego, CA, Kasey C. Nye, Lori L. Winkelman, Susan G. Boswell, Quarles Brady, LLP, Tucson, AZ, for Debtor. The Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego, pro se. Bishop/Diocese of San Bernardino, pro se. Tiffany L. Carroll, Office of the United States Trustee, San Diego, CA, for U.S. Trustee. MEMORANDUM DECISION LOUISE DeCARL ADLER, Bankruptcy
Hopkins v. Plant Insulation Co.
349 B.R. 805 (N.D. Cal. 2006) Cited 30 times
Holding that state courts retain concurrent jurisdiction over claims brought pursuant to § 544(b)
Federal Home Loan Bank v. Deutsche Bank Securities
Case No. 10-3039 SC, Case No. 10-3045 SC (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2010) Cited 12 times
Summarizing split of authority
Section 1334 - Bankruptcy cases and proceedings
28 U.S.C. § 1334 Cited 40,640 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 2,565 times 14 Legal Analyses
Granting removal power to any “party” in a bankruptcy case

The Charles Schwab Corporation et al v. BNP Paribas Securities Corp. et al

9 Cited authorities

Holding that courts have applied 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the supplemental jurisdiction statute, to bankruptcy courts to allow them to resolve bankruptcy claims solely based on "related to" jurisdiction

Holding that “the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction over the state[-]law breach[-]of[-]contract claims” where the claim lacked a “close nexus to the bankruptcy plan or proceeding”

Holding that decision to remand is nonreviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1478(b) (superseded 1984), the predecessor of § 1452(b)

Holding that even though an agreement required the approval of the bankruptcy court, such approval alone was insufficient to retain of jurisdiction

Holding that state courts retain concurrent jurisdiction over claims brought pursuant to § 544(b)

Summarizing split of authority

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