Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
Defendant, Appellee.
Before
June 2, 2017
The Hon. David H. Souter, Associate Justice (Ret.) of the
Supreme Court of the United States, sitting by designation.
LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. This appeal involves the
appeal the district court's ruling that the bankruptcy court lacked
I.
court and the district court. See Quincy Med. Ctr. v. Gupta, Nos.
Mass. Jan. 5, 2015); In re Quincy Med. Ctr., Inc., 479 B.R. 229,
the decisions below and discuss only the pertinent facts here.
- 2 -
Inc. ("Steward").1 One day later, on July 1, 2011, Debtors filed
a motion (the "Sale Motion") under sections 363 and 365 of the
- 3 -
On September 26, 2011, the bankruptcy court issued an
Sale Motion. The sale closed on October 1, 2011. Six days later,
"Confirmation Order").
over any disputes arising under them. The Sale Order provides:
- 4 -
15. Enter and enforce any order for the sale of property
pursuant to sections 363, 1123, or 1146(a) of the
Bankruptcy Code; . . . .
- 5 -
court found that it had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the
and enforce its own prior orders. The bankruptcy court offered
objections.
Munger, and Steward were heard, the bankruptcy court found Steward
- 6 -
II.
A. Jurisdictional Principles
court's findings of fact for clear error and afford de novo review
Middlesex Power Equip. & Marine, Inc.), 292 F.3d 61, 66 (1st Cir.
- 7 -
proceedings3 that follow the filing of a bankruptcy petition take
- 8 -
Hence, in order for Appellants' severance claims to fall
claims must "arise under," "arise in," or "relate to" a case under
title 11. We have observed that the boundaries between these types
Flaherty, 436 F.3d 209, 217 (3d Cir. 2006) (noting that "arising
- 9 -
substantive right invoked"); Wood v. Wood (In re Wood), 825 F.2d
90, 96 (5th Cir. 1987) ("Congress used the phrase 'arising under
11.").
"those that are not based on any right expressly created by title
F.3d at 68; see also Stoe, 436 F.3d at 218 ("[C]laims that 'arise
in' a bankruptcy case are claims that by their nature, not their
- 10 -
in jurisdiction, and that "[i]n none of these instances is there
938 F.2d 1467, 1475 (1st Cir. 1991)); see also Celotex, 514 U.S.
Boston Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc.), 410 F.3d 100, 105 (1st Cir. 2005)
- 11 -
B. Application of the Jurisdictional Principles
provisions in the Sale Order and the Plan. This approach was
erroneous.
See Travelers Indem. Co. v. Bailey, 557 U.S. 137, 151 (2009)
jurisdiction provision may not alter the fact that "the source of
Bankruptcy Code nor the express terms of the Plan. The source of
U.S. Brass Corp. v. Travelers, Ins. Group (In re U.S. Brass Corp.),
- 12 -
U.S.C. 1334. See Valley Historic Ltd. P'ship. v. Bank of N.Y.,
486 F.3d 831, 837 (4th Cir. 2007) ("[N]either the parties nor the
Waterhouse & Co., (In re Resorts Int'l., Inc.), 372 F.3d 154, 161
Group, Inc. v. Cox, 23 F.3d 159, 164 (7th Cir. 1994) ("[O]rders
jurisdictional ticket.").
claims for severance pay from Steward are proceedings which "arise
- 13 -
Hence, their claims do not "arise under" title 11 because
& Marine, Inc., 292 F.3d at 68; In re Wood, 825 F.2d at 96.
Similarly, these claims fall outside even the broad statutory grant
to' jurisdiction."
Steward "arise in" a bankruptcy case because the APA was approved
U.S.C. 363 and 365, and, invoking language from one of our prior
case and the Sale Order approving the sale of Debtors' assets to
Steward in the APA, their claims for severance pay would not exist.
- 14 -
our case law makes clear that for "arising in" jurisdiction to
Appellants suggest. That is, "the fact that a matter would not
have arisen had there not been a bankruptcy case does not ipso
if Appellants' claims are the type of claims that can only exist
in a bankruptcy case.
292 F.3d at 68; see also Elliott v. GM LLC (In re Motors Liquidation
Co.), 829 F.3d 135, 153 (2d Cir. 2016) ("A bankruptcy court's
- 15 -
decision to interpret and enforce a prior sale order falls under
Hence, unlike Middlesex Power Equip. & Marine, Inc., which involved
claims was based entirely on the terms of the APA and state
contract law. The court mentioned the Sale Order only in reference
- 16 -
Therefore, a court deciding Appellants' claims on the
"look like ones that could have arisen entirely outside the
therefore not merely "framed as state law claims," but are claims
in" a bankruptcy case). See also Marotta Gund Budd & Dzera LLC v.
Costa, 340 B.R. 661, 669 (D.N.H. 2006) (holding that defamation
- 17 -
In short, Appellants' claims do not fit into the narrow
Stoe, 436 F.3d at 218. Hence, the bankruptcy court did not possess
AFFIRMED
- 18 -