Fiddler's Creek, LLC v. Naples Lending Group LC

Filing 74

OPINION AND ORDER taking no further action on 67 Order to Show Cause as the Court finds jurisdiction is present. The Clerk shall assign a magistrate judge to the case and refer the pending motions to the magistrate judge. The stay is lifted and the standard orders shall issue. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 1/13/2015. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
IN RE:

FIDDLER’S CREEK, LLC

FIDDLER’S CREEK, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:14-cv-379-FtM-29

NAPLES LENDING GROUP LC,
DANIEL
CARTER,
and
MMA
REALTY
CAPITAL
LLC,
Respondent,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
On August 1, 2014, the undersigned issued an Order to Show
Cause (Doc. #67) directing defendants to show cause why the case
should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction.

The Court adopts, without repeating, the overview

of the procedural history of this case as set forth in the Order
to Show Cause.

(Doc. #67, pp. 1-5.)

Defendants filed their

Response to Order to Show Cause (Doc. #70) on August 15, 2014,
asserting that the federal court had subject matter jurisdiction
over the case at the time of removal, and as such, continues to
have jurisdiction.
With exceptions not relevant to this case, a defendant may
remove a state civil cause of action to a federal district court

“if such district court has jurisdiction of such claim or cause of
action under section 1334 of this title.”

28 U.S.C. § 1452(a).

With certain exceptions, Section 1334 provides that a district
court has “original and exclusive jurisdiction of all cases under
title 11,” 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a), and “original but not exclusive
jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under title 11, or
arising in or related to cases under title 11,” 28 U.S.C. 1334(b).
Jurisdictional facts are assessed at the time of removal.

Scimone

v. Carnival Corp., 720 F.3d 876, 882 (11th Cir. 2013)(citations
omitted).

A state case which is removed to federal court may be

remanded to state court “on any equitable ground.”

28 U.S.C. §

1452(b).
Defendants removed the case from state court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1334.

As the Eleventh Circuit recently stated:

Congress intended bankruptcy jurisdiction to
extend to “all civil proceedings” that are
“related to” bankruptcy cases.
28 U.S.C. §
1334(b). In the bankruptcy context, we have
interpreted “related to” jurisdiction as
extending to those proceedings that “could
conceivably have an effect on the estate being
administered in bankruptcy.”
Munford v.
Munford, Inc. (In re Munford, Inc.), 97 F.3d
449, 453 (11th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
This extends to “suits
between third parties which have an effect on
the bankruptcy estate.”
Celotex Corp. v.
Edwards, 514 U.S. 300, 307 n.5 (1995) (citing
Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 3.01[1] [c] [iv], p.
3–28 (15th ed. 1994)). Put another way, there
must be “some nexus between the civil
proceeding and the title 11 case.” Munford, 97
F.3d at 453.

- 2 -

In re Superior Homes & Invs., LLC, 521 F. App’x 895, 898 (11th
Cir.

2013).

jurisdiction

The
at

the

Court
time

finds
of

that

removal,

it

had

and

subject

that

matter

jurisdiction

continues to exist.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. The Court will take no further action on the Order to Show
Cause (Doc. #67) as the Court finds that subject matter
jurisdiction is present.
2. The Clerk is directed to randomly assign a Magistrate Judge
and refer the pending motions (Docs. ## 55, 58, 65) to the
Magistrate Judge for disposition.
3. The stay is hereby lifted to the extent that the Clerk
shall issue the standard Standing Order, Track Two Notice,
and Interested Persons Order so that the case may proceed.
4. The parties shall file a Case Management Report within the
time provided by the Track Two Notice and the Local Rule.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of January, 2015.

Copies:
Counsel of Record

- 3 -

13th

day