ILNews

7th Circuit finds remand to be unreviewable

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals looked at the issues of removal and remand in the context of bankruptcy in a case July 21 and found the bankruptcy court’s decision to remand a case to state court is unreviewable.  

In the 19-page decision authored by Judge Richard Posner, the federal appellate court looked at Judicial Code (Title 28) sections 1446(a) and 1447, and federal cases, which included Carlsbad Technology Inc. v. HIF Bio Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1862 (2009), to determine whether a company could appeal a bankruptcy judge’s order that an action originally filed in state court and removed to bankruptcy court should be sent back to the state court.

Alan Brill owned several radio stations that eventually went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The successful bidder on those at auction was Regent Communications, now known as Townsquare Media, who had at one point discussed with Brill the possibility of buying the media companies prior to bankruptcy. Brill filed suit in state court claiming the creditors of the debtors and some of the debtors’ lawyers and other professional advisors misused confidential information and encouraged Regent to violate two confidentiality agreements it had previously made with Brill. All his claims were based on Indiana law.

The case was moved to bankruptcy court after pre-bankruptcy creditors named as defendants asked the bankruptcy judge to take the case to enforce compliance with a previous order. The bankruptcy court took the case, but Brill later amended the case to only include Regent as a defendant in the alleged violations of the confidentiality agreement claims.

The bankruptcy judge ruled the amended complaint was unrelated to the bankruptcy, so the court had no jurisdiction over it. The judge ordered the suit remanded to the state court, which Regent appealed. The District Court affirmed, saying once the bankruptcy court found it had no jurisdiction, no action could be taken but to remand the case.

“The word ‘jurisdiction’ is a chameleon, judges do not always use it with precision, and the distinction between relinquishing and disavowing jurisdiction is a fine one. Had Regent argued supplemental jurisdiction to the bankruptcy judge, we might interpret what the judge did as relinquishment rather than disavowal,” wrote Judge Posner in Townsquare Media Inc., f/k/a Regent Communications Inc. v. Alan R. Brill, et al., Nos. 10-3017, 10-3018.

“But as no one mentioned supplemental jurisdiction, it hardly seems likely that the judge, in holding that he lacked jurisdiction, meant that he had jurisdiction but was relinquishing it. Such a characterization of his ruling would not be ‘colorable.’ So the remand was indeed unreviewable, and Regent’s appeal must therefore be – we conclude at long last – dismissed.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT