X hits on this document

30 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

8 / 13

given these considerations, for this court to retain the matter, given that this is plaintiff’s

preferred choice of forum?

The short answer is that it is not. The legal issues informing this litigation are indeed

grounded in state law, but so also are many of the legal issues which confront a bankruptcy

court.

State

law

controls

issues

of

property

of

the

estate,

the

allowance

of

claims,

the

determination of exemptions, the validity and perfection of secured claims, various actions

which can be brought under section 544(b), and questions surrounding the enforceability,

severability, and remedies associated with executory contracts. Actions for legal malpractice are

governed in this state by a fairly well-developed (and well-settled) body of case law. The court

has previously entertained a cause of action much like the one presented here, with the

concurrence of the district court. See Order Accepting Report and Recommendation of the

Bankruptcy Judge, Blackwell v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, SA-03-143-FB (July 30, 2003). There

too the plaintiff sought damages for legal malpractice, breach of contract, gross negligence, and

knowing participation in breach of fiduciary duty. Such actions have, increasingly, been brought

in federal court as a direct result of the filing of an enterprise whose downfall has been alleged

to have been caused, at least in part, by accounting irregularities. See, e.g., In re Southmark, 163

F.3d 925 (5th Cir. 1999); In re Southeast Banking Corp., 144 F.3d 732 (11th Cir. 1998). There

seems, on these facts, to be little in either the nature of the action brought, or the decisional law

controlling the action, that calls for abstention to avoid an injustice.

Nor can the procedural impediments imposed by this action’s being brought in federal

bankruptcy court serve as a basis for abstention, for a simple, common sense reason. Such a rule

would mean that abstention is indicated whenever a noncore, related action is brought in federal

bankruptcy court.12 Unless we are to read Congress’ own enactment of section 157(c)(1) of title

12 Section 157(c)(1) directs a bankruptcy court to submit proposed findings and conclusions for consideration by the district court, which enters any judgment in the matter. The district court can review de novo those matters to which a party has timely objected. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). The bankruptcy judge can enter final judgment only with the consent of both parties. Id. The district court may withdraw the reference if the matter cannot be tried by the bankruptcy court, due to a combination of a valid jury demand and lack of consent to the bankruptcy court’s conducting the jury trial by at least one

8

Document info
Document views30
Page views30
Page last viewedFri Dec 09 06:42:41 UTC 2016
Pages13
Paragraphs376
Words4511

Comments