House et al v. Moller et al

Filing 97

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 4/11/2014 ORDERING that the parties to submit briefing consisting of no more than ten pages to the Court within seven (7) days of the filing of this order addressing whether remand is appropriate. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Gregory House, et al,

12

No. 2:09-cv-02796-TLN-DAD

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14

Paul Moller et al,

15

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Defendants.

16
17

This Court held a Final Pretrial Conference on April 10, 2014. Plaintiffs Gregory and

18

Jennifer House’s (“Plaintiffs”) counsel Robert Black was present. Defendants Paul and Rosa

19

Moller’s (“Moller Defendants”) counsel Peter E. Glick was present, as well as Defendants

20

Edward and Dana Foss’s (“Foss Defendants”) counsel Daniel Raff. During the hearing, Moller

21

Defendants raised arguments as to this Court’s jurisdiction.
This case was originally filed in Solano County Superior Court. However, due to Moller

22
23

Defendants’ subsequent bankruptcy proceeding in federal court, the Superior Court stayed the

24

case one week before trial was to start.1 Foss Defendants filed a motion to withdraw the subject

25

property from Moller Defendant’s bankruptcy proceeding.2 (ECF No. 1.) Pursuant to Foss

26

1

27
28

See 28 U.S.C. § 1334 (Federal Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings);
see also Gonzales v. Parks, 830 F.2d 1033, 1035–36 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Congress' grant to the federal courts of
exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy petitions precludes collateral attacks on such petitions in state courts.”)
2
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), a “district court shall, on timely motion of a party, so withdraw a proceeding
if the court determines that resolution of the proceeding requires consideration of both title 11 and other laws of the

1

1
2

Defendants’ motion, this matter came before the district court. (Order, ECF No. 2.)
Since the withdrawal, a final decree was issued on Moller Defendants’ bankruptcy in

3

March, 2013. See In re: Paul Sandner Moller & Rosa Maria Moler, No. 09-29936 (ECF No.

4

558). Although, this does not divest this Court of jurisdiction to hear this case, it requires the

5

Court to consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity in determining whether it

6

should exercise its jurisdiction over the state claims presented. Carraher v. Morgan Elecs., Inc.

7

(In re Carraher), 971 F.2d 327, 328 (9th Cir. 1992). Due to the nature of this action which is

8

entirely based on state law and the fact that many of the litigation materials are still with the

9

presiding judge at the Solano Superior Court, this Court is considering remanding this case. As

10

such, the Court hereby orders the parties to submit briefing consisting of no more than ten pages

11

to the Court within seven (7) days of the filing of this order addressing whether remand is

12

appropriate.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 11, 2014

15
16

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce.”

2