McIntyre v. Active Energies Solar, et al.
- Case Type:
- Consumer
- Case Status:
- Affirmed
- Citation:
- 23-1052 (10th Circuit, Aug 02,2024) Published
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- Section 1334(d) of title 28 of the United States Code establishes that a Circuit Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to review a bankruptcy court's permissive abstention from hearing a debtor's claims. The Court of Appeals does have jurisdiction to review whether the bankruptcy court had the authority to abstain if the claims were subject to the district court's exclusive jurisdiction. Because the claims were "related to" the bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy court had non-exclusive jurisdiction over the claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), and the bankruptcy court properly abstained.
- Procedural context:
- After the debtor filed an adversary proceeding against a creditor and two insiders, raising the same claims that the debtor had made in prior state court litigation, the bankruptcy court (i) ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the debtor's claims and, (ii) that in the alternative, it would abstain from hearing the state-law claims. The debtor appealed to the BAP. The BAP disagreed that the bankruptcy court did not have jurisdiction but affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision to abstain.
The debtor appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
- Facts:
- A chapter 13 debtor, Frank William McIntyre, and his company worked with Active Energies Solar ("AES") to sell and install solar energy systems. McIntyre's relationship with AES soured after a change in AES's ownership, leading McIntyre to sue AES, its owner, and its former vice president for an unpaid commission.
The Colorado trial court dismissed some of McIntyre's claims and awarded attorney's fees to AES and its owner.
McIntyre then filed his chapter 13 petition and commenced an adversary proceeding against AES, its owner, and the former vice president, raising the same claims that were the subject of the state court litigation. McIntyre also objected to AES's proof of claim.
The bankruptcy court dismissed McIntyre's adversary proceeding and ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear McIntyre's state-law claims. The BAP affirmed the dismissal, but on different grounds. The BAP ruled that the bankruptcy court acted within its discretion when it opted to abstain from hearing McIntyre's claims. Because abstention was proper, dismissal was proper.
- Judge(s):
- MATHESON, EID, and CARSON, Circuit Judges
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!
