Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Marc Vianello Revocable Trust v. Pete & Mac's Lenexa, LLC

United States District Court, D. Kansas

May 15, 2014

MARC VIANELLO REVOCABLE TRUST, Plaintiff,
v.
PETE & MAC'S LENEXA, LLC and PET RESORTS, INC., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KATHRYN H. VRATIL, District Judge.

This Matter comes before the Court on defendants' Motion To Transfer Venue To [The] United States Bankruptcy Court For The District Of Arizona (Doc. #4) filed February 27, 2014; Plaintiff's Motion To Remand Or In The Alternative To Abstain (Doc. #5) and Plaintiff's Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #6), both filed March 4, 2014. For reasons set forth below, the Court sustains the motion to transfer.

Factual And Procedural Background

On June 15, 2012, defendant Pet Resorts, Inc. ("PRI") filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona. On October 30, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Plan of Reorganization. On November 25, 2013 (the effective date of the Plan), the Bankruptcy Court discharged PRI from all debts, claims and interests that arose before the effective date. The Bankruptcy Court retained broad, exclusive jurisdiction to determine disputes involving interpretation or enforcement of the Plan, the confirmation order, or "any agreement, instrument, or other document governing or relating to" the Plan or confirmation order. Under the Plan and confirmation order, PRI is a reorganized bankruptcy debtor authorized to operate as managing member of various Pete & Mac's pet resorts, including defendant Pete & Mac's Lenexa, LLC ("P&M Lenexa"). Plaintiff is a non-managing member of P&M Lenexa.

On February 20, 2014, plaintiff filed this suit in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas, seeking a declaratory judgment that PRI is a withdrawing, non-voting member of P&M Lenexa. Plaintiff also seeks a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction. See State Court Petition (Doc. #1-2). On February 26, 2014, defendants removed the case to this Court, asserting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1452 and 1334(b).

Defendants move to transfer this case to the Bankruptcy Court in Arizona. Plaintiff opposes transfer, and requests that the Court remand the case to the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas.

This case is nearly identical to two cases which plaintiff filed in state court in Missouri and which the defendants (PRI and a Missouri LLC in each case) removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. On April 25, 2014, the Honorable Beth Phillips granted defendants' motion to transfer those two cases to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona.

Legal Standards

Defendants removed this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1452, which permits removal of any claim or cause of action to the federal district court if such court has jurisdiction over the suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334. See 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a). Section 1334(a) gives district courts jurisdiction over "all cases under title 11 [of the Bankruptcy Code], " and "all civil proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11." 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a), (b).

Plaintiff asks the Court to remand, arguing that bankruptcy removal statutes do not apply because this action is not sufficiently related to the bankruptcy proceeding, and that this Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction under Section 1334(a) and (b) and Section 1452(a). Plaintiff also asserts that the Court must abstain from hearing the case under 28 U.S.C. §1334(c)(2).

Defendants seek transfer to the Bankruptcy Court in Arizona pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1412, which permits a district court to transfer "a case or proceeding under title 11" to another district "in the interest of justice or for the convenience of the parties."

Analysis

I. Motion To Remand Or Abstain

The Court first determines whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. As noted above, Section 1452(a) allows removal of any claim or cause of action over which this Court has jurisdiction. Section 1334(b) gives district courts jurisdiction ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.