Holmes

Holmes v. Mills (In re Holmes)

Good Law
32 B.R. 721·1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15603
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 7, 1983No. C-83-0381-MHPCalifornia1,419 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Patel, J.

*722 OPINION

Plaintiffs Joseph and Donna Holmes, debtors in the underlying Chapter 11 proceeding and shareholders in the Palace Hotel Holding Corporation, seek relief against the moving defendants, other shareholders, based on state law claims of breach of contract and fraud arising from a real estate investment involving the Palace Hotel Holding Corporation. The action, alleging jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1471 , was filed in bankruptcy court on December 9, 1982, together with a jury demand. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In accordance with General Order No. 24 § d(l)(D), which prohibits bankruptcy judges from conducting jury trials and provides for transfer of such matters to the district court, the parties transferred the action to this court.

Defendants now renew their motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. They argue that the Supreme Court’s decision in Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 , 102 S.Ct. 2858 , 73 L.Ed.2d 598 (1982), invalidated § 1471’s grant of jurisdiction to the District Courts as well as the bankruptcy courts over “related” state law claims. § 1471 provides in relevant…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.