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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT