Marshall v. Amero-Marshall et al
| Bryan J. Marshall |
| Adrienne Amero-Marshall |
| Richard King and Esquire Steven Weiss |
| 3:2019cv30143 |
| October 22, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Denise J Casper |
| Bankruptcy Withdrawl |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 0157 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 11, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 Judge Denise J. Casper: ORDER entered. ORDER DISMISSING CASE(Hourihan, Lisa) |
| Filing 6 Judge Denise J. Casper: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. D. #1 : Having considered the Debtor's motion to withdraw two parts of the reference to bankruptcy court, D. 1, the opposition to same, D. 4, and Debtor's reply, D. 5, the Court DENIES the motion. The first part of the reference at issue concerns Debtor's objection to the claimant's proof of claim that is based upon a personal injury action that is pending in a civil assault and battery lawsuit in Connecticut Superior Court. D. 1 at 2-3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(5), the "district court shall order that personal injury tort... claims shall be tried in the district court...." Still, district courts "have broad discretion to abstain from hearing state law claims whenever appropriate 'in the interest of justice, or in the interest of comity with State courts or respect for State law.'" In re Middlesex Power Equip. & Marine, Inc., 292 F.3d 61, 69 (1st Cir. 2002) (quoting Gober v. Terra + Corp., 100 F.3d 1195, 1206 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing 28 U.S.C. 1334(c)(1))). To make such discretionary determination, the Court should consider the interests of justice, comity and respect for state law. Id. (concluding that the court was "well within its discretion to abstain" to allow the state Land Court to resolve an issue). Where this alleged incident occurred in Connecticut, the bulk of the witnesses are there and a state court there has been presiding over the case that was previously set for trial, D. 4 at 3, 8, the interests of justice and comity are better served by litigation remaining there. Although as a court with diversity jurisdiction, this Court is often grappling with issues of state law, a Connecticut state court is in a better position to consider and apply the more familiar law of its state. For all of these reasons, the Court abstains from exercising jurisdiction over the objection to the personal injury claim and, therefore, that portion of the motion is denied. The Court also denies the motion to extent that it also seeks to withdraw the reference as to the adversary proceeding seeking nondischargeability status for her claim. D. 1 at 1. Debtor appears to rely on the same line of cases as to the objection, arguing that "since the personal injury tort cannot be tried in the bankruptcy court and should be tried in this Court, the adversary proceeding should also be tried in this Court." D. 1 at 7. Having abstained from doing so as to the personal injury matter itself, the Court cannot agree that "judicial efficiency," D. 1 at 7, would be served by having the adversary proceeding go forward before this Court. In the absence of any law mandating otherwise, the bankruptcy court will be in the best position to determine the non-dischargeability issue. D. 4 at 8. For all of these reasons, the motion is DENIED. (McKillop, Matthew) |
| Filing 5 REPLY to Opposition to #1 MOTION to Withdraw Reference filed by Bryan J. Marshall. (McKillop, Matthew) |
| Filing 4 Opposition re #1 MOTION to Withdraw Reference filed by Adrienne Amero-Marshall. (Attachments: #1 Transmittal)(McKillop, Matthew) |
| Filing 3 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. Judge Denise J. Casper assigned to case. (Finn, Mary) |
| Filing 2 DOCKET SHEET RECEIVED from Bankruptcy Court Record re #1 MOTION to Withdraw Reference by Bryan J. Marshall. (Coppola, Katelyn) |
| Filing 1 MOTION to Withdraw Reference by Bryan J. Marshall. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet and Category, #2 Initial Transmittal)(Coppola, Katelyn) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
