The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge
I. Introduction and Background
Before the Court is Plaintiff Prime Development, Inc.'s, Motion to Remand (Docs. 6 & 7). Defendant First Clover Leaf Bank has filed a Response to the Motion (Doc. 8) and a Supplement to that Response (Doc. 19).
This matter involves a proposed class action Complaint filed by Plaintiff in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois seeking pre-bankruptcy claims of breach of contract, consumer fraud, and violation of the Illinois Interest Act (Doc. 2, Ex. 1). Plaintiff had previously filed for bankruptcy in the Southern District of Illinois and that Court had granted the Trustee's motion to pursue a claim against Defendant for wrongfully charging interest on promissory notes. On July 14, 2010 Plaintiff sought remand of the case, arguing that this Court was required to remand under the mandatory abstention provision set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2). In the alternative, Plaintiff argued that the case should be remanded under the doctrine of permissive abstention pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1) & 1452(b). Defendant has filed a Response arguing that this Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's Complaint and that Plaintiff is entitled to neither mandatory nor permissive abstention. Based on the following, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. 6).
It is fundamental that "federal courts are not courts of general jurisdiction; they have only the power that is authorized by Article III of the Constitution and the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto." Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541, 89 L.Ed.2d 501, 106 S.Ct. 1326 (1986). Therefore, the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, is construed narrowly and doubts concerning removal are resolved in favor of remand. Does v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 1985 F.2d 908, 911 (7th Cir. 1993). Defendant bears the burden to present evidence of federal jurisdiction once the existence of that jurisdiction is fairly cast into doubt. See In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litig., 123 F.3d 599, 607 (7th Cir. 1997).
A case may be removed to the district court "if such district court has jurisdiction of such claim or cause of action under Section 1334 of this title." 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a). Defendant removed this case based on the original jurisdiction found under 28 U.S.C. §1334. Section 1334(b) provides that a "district [court] shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11." The "arising under" provision describes causes of action created by provisions found in Title 11 while "arising in" relates to those cases which could not exist outside of the bankruptcy proceeding. In re Repository Tech., Inc., 601 F.3d 710, 719 (7th Cir. 2010). Seventh Circuit's view of "related to" jurisdiction is narrow and matters are considered "related to" "when the dispute 'affects the amount of property for distribution...or the allocation of property among creditors.'" Matter of Memorial Estates, Inc., 950 F.2d 1364, 1368 (7th Cir. 1991) (quoting In re Xonics, Inc., 813 F.2d 127, 131 (7th Cir. 1987)). Here, the parties agree that this Court has original jurisdiction as Plaintiff's claims "relate to" the bankruptcy proceeding as a verdict or settlement would affect the amount of property for distribution, although the parties disagree on how closely related that relationship might be.
However, the Court is reluctant to find that this Court has exclusive jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims as Defendant raises in its Response. While Defendant failed to raise the position in its Notice of Removal, arguing only that the Court had original jurisdiction under Section 1334 because it was "related to" the bankruptcy proceeding, Defendant now argues that the Court maintains original and exclusive jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(e). In support of its proposition, Defendant relies on Williams v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 244 B.R. 858, 866 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2000), which found that a District Court has exclusive jurisdiction under § 1334(e) over all property of a bankruptcy estate, which Defendant argues includes Plaintiff's claims in this case. See also United States v. Whiting Pools, 462 U.S. 198, 204 & n.9 (1983) (finding that causes of action are included as property of the estate).
However, numerous other courts disagree with the findings in Williams. See Blachy v. Butcher, 221 F.3d 896, 909 (6th Cir. 2000) (finding that bankruptcy court can share jurisdiction with other courts); In re Noletto, 244 B.R. 845 (Bankr. S.D.Ala. 2000); Bank United v. Manley, 273 B.R. 229 (N.D. Ala. 2001). Such a finding, as suggested in Williams, would render the abstention provisions found in 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c) uesless. Under a Williams view of the statue, the exclusive jurisdiction provision under Section 1334(e) would prevent debtor complaints being brought in state court because it would be considered estate property under the exclusive jurisdiction of the district court even though the district court is required to abstain from certain proceedings, even those that may qualify as estate property, under Section 1334(c)(2). As numerous courts have pointed out, this conflict among the sections caused by the interpretation under Williams could not be what Congress intended under 28 U.S.C. § 1334. Accordingly, while the Court finds that it has original jurisdiction under Section 1334(b), it does not have exclusive jurisdiction over the estate's property as Defendant argues.
Plaintiff argues that this case is subject to the mandatory abstention provisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2). Under Section 1334(c)(2):
[u]pon timely motion of a party in a proceeding based upon a State law claim or State law cause of action, related to a case under title 11 but not arising under title 11 or arising in a case under title 11, with respect to which an action could not have been commenced in a court of the United States absent jurisdiction under this section, the district court shall abstain from hearing such proceeding if an action is commenced, and can be timely adjudicated, in a State forum of appropriate jurisdiction.
The burden of proving that abstention is appropriate is on the party seeking abstention. In re Demert & Dogherty, Inc., 271 B.R. 821, 842-43 (Bankr. N.D.Ill. 2001); Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Wicks Inc. v. Wilson, No. 06 C 0869, 2006 WL 1457786, at * 5 (N.D. Ill. 2006); Klohr v. Martin & Bayley, Inc., No. 05-CV-456-GPM, 2006 WL 1207141, at *2 (S.D.Ill. 2006). Here, Plaintiff has not met its burden on proving that abstention is mandatory in this case. While Plaintiff's claims are "related to" the bankruptcy case, Plaintiff has not shown that the case can be timely adjudicated in a state forum. Plaintiff offers no explanation or argument as to this prong of the statute. Instead, Plaintiff merely states that Defendant has demonstrated no reason why the case can not be "timely adjudicated" in a proper Illinois court. However, the burden is not on Defendant to prove that the case cannot be ...