Rice v. Mills et al
ORDER denying 14 John Miller's Motion to Abstain. Signed by Judge Susan Webber Wright on 10/19/11. (vjt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
M RANDY RICE, Trustee for Shur-Valu
Stamps, Inc, et al.,
Case No: 4:11CV668 SWW
JOHN MILLS, ET AL.,
Shur-Valu Stamps, Inc. (“Shur-Valu”) filed a petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on May
5, 2009 . The Chapter 11 case was converted to Chapter 7 case on August 13, 2009, and M
Randy Rice was appointed as trustee for Shur-Valu.1 On May 4, 2011, Rice filed an adversary
proceeding in bankruptcy court against fourteen former officers and members of the board of
directors of Shur-Valu, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, civil conspiracy, unjust
enrichment, and waste of corporate assets.2 United States District Judge Brian Miller granted
the motion to withdraw the reference on September 7, 2011, and on October 4, 2011, the case
was reassigned to this Court.
In re Shur Valu Stamps, Inc., Case No. 4:09bk-13183.
Rice v. Mills, No. 4:11-ap-1151.
Separate defendant John Miller moves the Court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction in
this case in order to allow the state law claims to be resolved in a pending state court case, Kelley
v. John Mills, et al., Civil Action No. 09-5139-3. Miller argues abstention is mandated by 28
U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2). In the alternative, he argues the Court should exercise permissive
abstention pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1). For the same reasons the Court denied the motion
to abstain in Cox v. Hendrix,3 the Court denies the motion to abstain in this case. The Court
finds Miller fails to establish a parallel action has been commenced in state court or that the
action can be timely adjudicated in state court. The Court further finds Miller fails to show that
permissive abstention is appropriate.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to abstain [docket entry 14] is denied.
DATED this 19th day of October, 2011.
/s/Susan Webber Wright
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
See docket entry 42 in Cox v. Hendrix et al., Case No. 4:11cv558 SWW.