Hart v. Bello
| Decision Date | 27 April 2011 |
| Docket Number | 11 Civ. 67 (RMB) |
| Parties | PENNY FERN HART, Plaintiff, v. JOHN BELLO, et al., Defendants. JOHN BELLO, et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. THE ORIGINAL SOUPMAN INC., et al., Third-Party Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
On August 14, 2009, Penny Fern Hart ("Plaintiff) commenced this action by filing a notice of motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint ("Complaint") in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against John Bello, Maj-Britt Rosenbaum, and William McCreery (collectively, "Defendants"), alleging that Defendants, who are shareholders of Soup Kitchen International, Inc. ("Soup Kitchen"), failed to pay Plaintiff, who is a director and shareholder of Soup Kitchen, certain guaranties under a loan agreement, dated April 11, 2007 ("Loan Agreement"). 1 On May 18, 2010, an involuntary bankruptcy petition against Soup Kitchen was filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York ("Bankruptcy Case").
Under the Loan Agreement, Commerce Bank ("Bank") lent the sum of $1,000,000 to Soup Kitchen ("Loan"), and each Defendant executed a personal guaranty (collectively, "Guaranties") of the Loan. ) On April 15, 2008, Soup Kitchen failed to repay the Loan, triggering a default. (See Aff. of Penny Fern Hart, dated Aug. 12, 2009, attached to Pl. Mem. as Ex. G ("Hart Aff."), ¶18.) On or about June 11, 2008, the Bank assigned "all of its right, title, and interest in and to [the Loan]" to Plaintiff. (Tonorezos Decl. Ex. G.)
On or about October 26, 2010, Defendants filed counterclaims ("Counterclaims") against Plaintiff alleging, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting a fraudulent transfer of assets. On October 26, 2010, Defendants also commenced a third party action ("Third Party Action") against the Original Soupman, Inc., Sebastian Rametta, Robert Bertrand, Daniel Rubano, Hank Gracin, Ronald L. Crane, Soup One, Inc., International Gourmet Soups, Inc., and Soup Rock Center, Inc. (collectively, "Third Party Defendants"), alleging, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent transfer of Soup Kitchen's assets, and breach of contract.
On January 5, 2011, Defendants removed the case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452, asserting that the case is "related to" the Bankruptcy Case. (See Not. of Removal ¶ 15); see 28 U.S.C. § 1334; In re Soup Kitchen Int'l, Inc., No. 10-44670 .
By letter, dated January 21, 2011, special litigation counsel to Robert L. Geltzer, the Bankruptcy Case trustee ("Trustee") to the Soup Kitchen bankruptcy estate ("Bankruptcy Estate"), advised the Court that "the Trustee intends to substitute himself for [Defendants] withrespect to a number of [Defendants'] third-party claims, including [Defendants' claims for] breach of fiduciary duty [and] for avoidance of [] allegedly fraudulent conveyance of the assets of [Soup Kitchen]." (See Ltr. from Trustee to Hon. Richard M. Berman, dated Jan. 21, 2011 ("Trustee Ltr.").)
On March 4, 2011, Plaintiff and Third Party Defendants filed a joint motion to remand, arguing, among other things, that (1) the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action because it is not "'related to' the Bankruptcy Case"; and (2) even if the Court concludes "that it has 'related to' jurisdiction, remand is required on the basis of abstention." (Mem. of Law in Supp. of Pl. Mot. to Dismiss and Pl. and Third Party Defs. Joint Mot. to Remand, dated Mar. 4, 2011 ("Pl. Mem."), at 8, 19.) In the alternative, Plaintiff "seeks to dismiss her claim[s], without prejudice, as well as to dismiss [the Counterclaims and Third Party Action]." (Pl. Mem at 1, 7.)
On March 25, 2011, Defendants filed an opposition to the motion to remand, arguing, among other things, that (1) this case is related to the Bankruptcy Case because the outcome of this case "will impact upon the handling and administration of the [B]ankrupt[cy] [E]state"; and (2) neither mandatory nor discretionary abstention is appropriate. (Defs. Mem. of Law in Supp. of Cross-Mot. to Transfer and in Opp'n to Mot. to Remand, dated Mar. 25, 2011 ("Defs. Mem."), at 10, 21-24.) Defendants also contend that dismissal without prejudice is improper under Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Defendants have expended significant time and resources answering the Complaint and asserting Counterclaims and Third Party Claims. (Defs. Mem. at 19.) Defendants also cross-moved to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York to "facilitate the economic administration of [Soup Kitchen's Bankruptcy] [E]state." (Defs. Mem. at 12.)
On April 1, 2011, Plaintiff and Third Party Defendants filed a reply. (See Pl. Mem. of Law in Further Supp. of Mot. to Remand and in Opp'n to Defs. Mot. to Transfer, dated Apr. 1, 2011 ("Pl. Opp'n").) On April 8, 2011, Defendants filed a sur-reply. (See Defs. Mem. of Law in Reply to Opp'n to Cross-Mot. to Transfer, dated Apr. 8, 2011.) The parties waived oral argument.
For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motion to remand is denied, and Defendants' cross-motion to transfer is granted.
"When presented with competing motions to remand a case and to transfer venue, a court is to consider the remand motion first, and then address the motion to transfer venue only if it first denies the motion to remand." Lothian Cassidy LLC v. Ransom, 428 B.R. 555, 558 (E.D.N.Y. 2010).
"[T]he district courts shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings... related to cases under [the Bankruptcy Code]." 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). Litigation is "related to" "a pending bankruptcy proceeding [if] its outcome might have any 'conceivable effect' on the bankrupt estate." In re Cuyahoga Equip. Corp., 980 F.2d 110, 114 (2d Cir. 1992); see Parmalat Capital Fin. Ltd. v. Bank of Am. Corp., 632 F.3d 71, 78 (2d Cir. 2011).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2), mandatory abstention occurs if "the action has already been commenced in state court, and it can be timely adjudicated there."2 In re Ames Dep't Stores, Inc., 319 F. App'x 40, 42 (2d Cir. 2009). And, "[f]ederal courts should be sparing intheir exercise of discretionary abstention" under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1). In re Texaco Inc., 182 B.R. 937, 946-47 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1995).
"[T]he district in which the underlying bankruptcy case is pending is presumed to be the appropriate district for hearing and determination of a proceeding in bankruptcy." In re Manville Forest Prod. Corp., 896 F.2d 1384, 1391 (2d Cir. 1990).
(1) Jurisdiction
Plaintiff argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction and remand is appropriate because "enforcement of the [g]uaranties will not have any conceivable effect on [Soup Kitchen's Bankruptcy] [E]state." (Pl. Mem. at 16.) Defendants counter that this matter is "related to" the Bankruptcy Case because, "if [Defendants are] held liable on [Plaintiff's] claims, [Defendants] will have claims against [Soup Kitchen] for money damages and will be subrogated to the Plaintiffs secured claim in [the] Bankruptcy Case." (Defs. Mem. at 10.)
The Court has jurisdiction and remand is inappropriate because Plaintiffs action against Defendants to recover on the Guaranties is clearly "related to" Soup Kitchen's pending bankruptcy in the Eastern District. See Lifetime Brands, Inc. v. ARC Int'l, S.A., No. 09 Civ. 9792, 2010 WL 454680, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2010); see also N.Y. City Emp. Ret. Sys. v. Ebbers (In re Worldcom, Inc. Sec. Litig.), 293 B.R. 308, 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); see also In re Amanat, 338 B.R. 574, 579-80 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005). "[M]any courts have found suits by creditors against guarantors to be 'related to' bankruptcy proceedings." N.J. Steel Corp. v. Bank of N.Y., No. 95 Civ. 3071, 1997 WL 716911, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 1997). If Defendants were to be found liable to Plaintiff, Defendants would have "a corresponding claim [against theBankruptcy Estate] based on principles of subrogation, common law indemnification or reimbursement." In re New 118th LLC, 396 B.R. 885, 891 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2008); see Merrill Lynch Mortgage Capital Inc. v. Esmerian, No. 08 Civ. 5058, 2008 WL 2596369, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2009). Plaintiff's argument that Defendants have no hope of recovery against the Bankruptcy Estate is unpersuasive because, "[h]owever unlikely it might be that there will be sufficient value in the estate to provide for actual distributions [to a guarantor], the prospect of an effect on distributions is conceivable." See In re Extended Stay Inc., 435 B.R. 139, 150 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); see also In re Finnie, Bankr. No. 05-16373, Adv. No. 05-3652, 2007 WL 1574294, at *12 .
(2) Abstention
Plaintiff argues that "principles of mandatory... abstention [under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2)] require remand" because "this action can be 'timely adjudicated' in the [s]tate [c]ourt." (Pl. Mem. at 19, 20.) Defendants counter, among other things, that "the timeliness criteria... cannot be met." (Defs. Mem. at 22.)
Mandatory abstention is not warranted because, among other reasons, this action cannot be timely adjudicated in state court. See Parmalat Capital Fin., Ltd. v. Bank of Am. Corp., — F.3d 2011 WL 1365008, at *5 (2d Cir. 2011).3 For one thing, the complexity of issues and the expertise required to resolve this dispute involve application of bankruptcy law. In re General Growth Properties, Inc., Bankr. No. 09-11977, Adv. No. 10-4273, 2011 WL 766129, at *7 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25, 2011). Indeed, Defendants' third-party claims for breach offiduciary duty and avoidance of an alleged fraudulent transfer of assets...
To continue reading
Request your trial