Ritter et al v. Chrysler Group, LLC

Filing 19

ORDER: ADOPTING U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson's Report and Recommendation 17 subject to modifications; DENYING defendant's motion to dismiss 3 without prejudice to renew its motion within 14 days of notice by the clerk of the rec ipient court that the matter has been docketed and assigned an adversary proceeding case number; DENYING plaintiff's motion to remand, or in the alternative to stay proceedings 7 ; directing the clerk to transfer this matter to the Southern District of New York; directing the clerk to close the case file. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 2/11/14. (km)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RACHEL RITTER, KELL Y
RITTER AND DAVID RITTER

No.4:13-CV-2123
(Judge Brann)

Plaintiffs,
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)
v.
CHRYSLER GROUP LLC,

Defendant.
ORDER
February 11,2014
BACKGROUND:
On July 12,2013, Plaintiffs, husband and wife David and Kelly Ritter,
along with their daughter, Rachel Ritter, filed a complaint in the Court of Common
Pleas of Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges breach of
warranty and loss of consortium. Defendant, Chrysler Group LLC, removed the
case to this court, and, shortly thereafter, filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No.3.
Plaintiffs responded with a motion to transfer or in the alternative, to abstain and
remand the case back to state court. ECF No.7.
The matter was referred to Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, who
heard oral argument and issued a Report and Recommendation on October 28,
2013. ECF No. 17. Defendant filed objections to the Report and Recommendation

\,

on November 17,2013, ECF No. 18; Plaintiffs did not object to the Report and
Recommendation. The Report and Recommendation will be adopted in its entirety,
with the limited exceptions discussed below.
ANALYSIS:

Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson's recommendation to deny Plaintiffs'
Motion to Remand or Abstain is adopted. Mandatory abstention under 28 U.S.C. §
1334(c) is not appropriate because this claim, which requires interpretation of the
"Old Chrysler}" bankruptcy sale order, is a "core proceeding" in bankruptcy. See
In re Allegheny Health, Educ. and Research Found., 383 F.3d 169, 175-76 (3d
Cir. 2004). As a core proceeding, this Court shall exercise its discretion and
decline to remand or abstain to ensure uniform interpretation and consistent results
of claims requiring the interpretation of the Old Chrysler bankruptcy sale order.
Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson's recommendation to transfer venue to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York is adopted so that the

) For clarity, the following entities are combined under the "Old Chrysler"
title: DaimlerChrysler Corporation, DaimlerChrysler Company LLC, Chrysler
LLC, Old Carco LLC, and Old Carco Liquidation Trust. Defendant, Chrysler
Group LLC (flk/a New Carco Acquisition LLC), has been referred to by other
district courts as "New Chrysler."
2

recipient court may rule based on its interpretation of the Old Chrysler bankruptcy
sale order.
Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson's recommendation to deny Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss without prejudice is adopted, subject to Defendant's
modification request set forth in its objection to the Report and Recommendation.
By denying this motion without prejudice, Defendant may renew its motion after
transfer, and the recipient court may rule as it deems appropriate.

In its limited objection to the Report and Recommendation, Defendant
requested adoption of language that would allow it to renew this motion within 14
days of the assignment of a case number by the recipient court. This reasonable
request shall also be adopted.
Finally, Defendant objected to certain errors in party identity within Chief
Magistrate Judge Carlson's Report and Recommendation. This Court
acknowledges the distinction between Old and New Chrysler as laid out in note 1,

supra. The recipient court will rule on the transfer of certain liabilities from Old
Chrysler to Defendant based on its interpretation of the Old Chrysler bankruptcy
sale order.

3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1.

United States Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson's October
28th, 2013 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED, subject to the
modifications discussed above. ECF No. 17.

2.

Defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED without prejudice to renew
its motion within 14 days of notice by the clerk of the recipient court
that the matter has been docketed and assigned an adversary
proceeding case number. ECF No.3.

3.

Plaintiffs motion to remand, or in the alternative to stay proceedings
is DENIED. ECF No.7.

4.

The clerk is directed to transfer 4:13-CV-2123 to the Southern
District of New York.

5.

The clerk is directed to close the file.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann ,
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge

4