  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
iii. Rock Airport of Pittsburgh, LLC v. Management Science Associates, Inc., 2014 WL 1414853 (W.D. Pa. 2014)
Issue: Whether Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction to make final decision on adversary proceeding involving easement.
Holdings (1)Bankruptcy court had "core" jurisdiction to finally decide adversary proceeding brought by owner of office building in Chapter 11 debtor's business park to compel debtor to grant easement across its property so that owner of building could obtain electric power from another electric provider. Power company was created by debtor to supply power to businesses in its park and in face of office building's increasing electrical power needs, became unable or unwilling to continue to provide it with electricity. Cause of action to compel debtor to grant easement across its land, in order to permit migration of building to another electric provider as previously directed by state court, was one impacting administration of bankruptcy estate, which bankruptcy court was statutorily authorized to finally resolve. Even assuming that bankruptcy court lacked "core" jurisdiction to finally decide adversary proceeding, debtor and related power company that it had created consented to bankruptcy court's resolution of dispute by actively participating in proceeding for nine months without raising any jurisdictional objection, by suggesting that a design study be commissioned to determine most appropriate location for easement, and by stating that design study was means by which "the controversy in the matter could be finally resolved."
(2) State court consent order which required owner of office building in Chapter 11 debtor's business park to continue acting, as commercially soon as possible, to shift its electric power consumption from power company created by debtor to another electric provider, was not final order of kind required to trigger application of Rooker-Feldman doctrine and to prevent bankruptcy court from ordering implementation of design plan for power easement across debtor's land, even assuming that bankruptcy court's order conflicted with prior state court consent order.
iv. In re New England Compounding Pharmacy, Inc. Products Liability Litigation, 496 B.R. 256 (D. Mass. 2013)
Issue: When multidistrict product liability litigation involving a bankrupt debtor is pending before a federal district court, what is the scope of the district court's "related to" jurisdiction over other state and federal cases.
Holding: The district court held that it had "related to" jurisdiction over pending federal and state cases against entities or individuals affiliated with the bankrupt debtor regardless of whether the debtor was actually named as a defendant. The court also held that it had "related to" jurisdiction over pending state court actions where the plaintiff actually asserted a claim, or the defendant had actually asserted a claim for contribution or indemnification, against the debtor or its affiliated entities or individuals. The court then held that even if it had jurisdiction over state
©2014 William L. Norton III
