The general Demurrer (ROA # 36) of Defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation ("Defendant") to causes of action 1, 3 and 4 in the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") of Plaintiff J.W. MITCHELL, INC. ("Plaintiff"), is OVERRULED.
Defendant is ordered to file its Answer to the FAC within twenty (20) days of this hearing. Jurisdiction of Bankruptcy Court
State court jurisdiction is not proper to accomplish the adjustment of rights and duties within the bankruptcy process itself, which should be uniquely and exclusively federal (e.g., debtors' petitions, creditors' claims, disputes over reorganization plans, disputes over discharge, and such other proceedings). Satten v. Webb (2002) 99 Cal. App. 4th 365, 384. "...[A]lthough the underlying fraud proceeding was ultimately resolved in bankruptcy court, it did not amount to an 'authorized bankruptcy proceeding,' because it was not grounded in a federal statutory provision, but rather represented a common law fraud action (removed for different re
Hearing Date
March 01, 2017
Category
Civil - Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
The general Demurrer (ROA # 36) of Defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation ("Defendant") to causes of action 1, 3 and 4 in the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") of Plaintiff J.W. MITCHELL, INC. ("Plaintiff"), is OVERRULED.
Defendant is ordered to file its Answer to the FAC within twenty (20) days of this hearing. Jurisdiction of Bankruptcy Court
State court jurisdiction is not proper to accomplish the adjustment of rights and duties within the bankruptcy process itself, which should be uniquely and exclusively federal (e.g., debtors' petitions, creditors' claims, disputes over reorganization plans, disputes over discharge, and such other proceedings). Satten v. Webb (2002) 99 Cal. App. 4th 365, 384. "...[A]lthough the underlying fraud proceeding was ultimately resolved in bankruptcy court, it did not amount to an 'authorized bankruptcy proceeding,' because it was not grounded in a federal statutory provision, but rather represented a common law fraud action (removed for different re