28 U.S.C. § 1334

Bankruptcy cases and proceedings

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the district courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all cases under title 11.(b) Except as provided in subsection (e)(2), and notwithstanding any Act of Congress that confers exclusive jurisdiction on a court or courts other than the district courts, the district courts shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11.(c)(1) Except with respect to a case under chapter 15 of title 11, nothing in this section prevents a district court in the interest of justice, or in the interest of comity with State courts or respect for State law, from abstaining from hearing a particular proceeding arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11.(2) Upon timely motion of a party in a proceeding based upon a State law claim or State law cause of action, related to a case under title 11 but not arising under title 11 or arising in a case under title 11, with respect to which an action could not have been commenced in a court of the United States absent jurisdiction under this section, the district court shall abstain from hearing such proceeding if an action is commenced, and can be timely adjudicated, in a State forum of appropriate jurisdiction.(d) Any decision to abstain or not to abstain made under subsection (c) (other than a decision not to abstain in a proceeding described in subsection (c)(2)) is not reviewable by appeal or otherwise by the court of appeals under section 158(d), 1291, or 1292 of this title or by the Supreme Court of the United States under section 1254 of this title. Subsection (c) and this subsection shall not be construed to limit the applicability of the stay provided for by section 362 of title 11, United States Code, as such section applies to an action affecting the property of the estate in bankruptcy.(e) The district court in which a case under title 11 is commenced or is pending shall have exclusive jurisdiction—(1) of all the property, wherever located, of the debtor as of the commencement of such case, and of property of the estate; and(2) over all claims or causes of action that involve construction of section 327 of title 11, United States Code, or rules relating to disclosure requirements under section 327.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 931; Pub. L. 95–598, title II, § 238(a), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2667; Pub. L. 98–353, title I, § 101(a), July 10, 1984, 98 Stat. 333; Pub. L. 99–554, title I, § 144(e), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3096; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 309(b), Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5113; Pub. L. 103–394, title I, § 104(b), Oct. 22, 1994, 108 Stat. 4109; Pub. L. 109–8, title III, § 324(a), title VIII, § 802(c)(2), title XII, § 1219, Apr. 20, 2005, 119 Stat. 98, 145, 195.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 41(19) and 371(6) (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §§ 24, par. 19, 256, par. 6, 36 Stat. 1093, 1160).

Changes in phraseology were made.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2005—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 109–8, § 324(a)(1), substituted “Except as provided in subsection (e)(2), and notwithstanding” for “Notwithstanding”.

Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 109–8, § 802(c)(2), substituted “Except with respect to a case under chapter 15 of title 11, nothing in” for “Nothing in”.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 109–8, § 1219, substituted “made under subsection (c)” for “made under this subsection” and “Subsection (c) and this subsection” for “This subsection”.

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 109–8, § 324(a)(2), added subsec. (e) and struck out former subsec. (e) which read as follows: “The district court in which a case under title 11 is commenced or is pending shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all of the property, wherever located, of the debtor as of the commencement of such case, and of property of the estate.”

1994—Subsecs. (c)(2), (d). Pub. L. 103–394, § 104(b)(2), inserted “(other than a decision not to abstain in a proceeding described in subsection (c)(2))” after “subsection” in second sentence of subsec. (c)(2) and designated that sentence and third sentence of subsec. (c)(2) as subsec. (d). Former subsec. (d) redesignated (e).

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 103–394, § 104(b)(1), redesignated subsec. (d) as (e).

1990—Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 101–650 inserted in second sentence “or not to abstain” after “to abstain” and “by the court of appeals under section 158(d), 1291, or 1292 of this title or by the Supreme Court of the United States under section 1254 of this title” before period at end.

1986—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 99–554 substituted “and of property of the estate” for “and of the estate”.

1984—Pub. L. 98–353 in amending section generally, substituted “cases” for “matters” in section catchline, designated existing provision as subsec. (a), and in subsec. (a) as so designated, substituted “Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the district” for “The district” and “original and exclusive jurisdiction of all cases under title 11” for “original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all matters and proceedings in bankruptcy”, and added subsecs. (b) to (d).

1978—Pub. L. 95–598 directed the general amendment of section to relate to bankruptcy appeals, which amendment did not become effective pursuant to section 402(b) of Pub. L. 95–598, as amended, set out as an Effective Date note preceding section 101 of Title 11, Bankruptcy.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2005 Amendment

Pub. L. 109–8, title III, § 324(b), Apr. 20, 2005, 119 Stat. 98, provided that: “This section [amending this section] shall only apply to cases filed after the date of enactment of this Act [Apr. 20, 2005].”

Amendment by sections 802(c)(2) and 1219 of Pub. L. 109–8 effective 180 days after Apr. 20, 2005, and not applicable with respect to cases commenced under Title 11, Bankruptcy, before such effective date, except as otherwise provided, see section 1501 of Pub. L. 109–8, set out as a note under section 101 of Title 11.

Effective Date of 1994 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 103–394 effective Oct. 22, 1994, and not applicable with respect to cases commenced under Title 11, Bankruptcy, before Oct. 22, 1994, see section 702 of Pub. L. 103–394, set out as a note under section 101 of Title 11.

Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–554 effective 30 days after Oct. 27, 1986, see section 302(a) of Pub. L. 99–554, set out as a note under section 581 of this title.

Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–353 effective July 10, 1984, except that subsec. (c)(2) not applicable with respect to cases under Title 11, Bankruptcy, that are pending on July 10, 1984, or to proceedings arising in or related to such cases, see section 122(a), (b) of Pub. L. 98–353, set out as an Effective Date note under section 151 of this title.

Jurisdiction Over and Transfer of Bankruptcy Cases and Proceedings

Pub. L. 98–353, title I, § 115, July 10, 1984, 98 Stat. 343, provided that:“(a) On the date of the enactment of this Act [July 10, 1984] the appropriate district court of the United States shall have jurisdiction of—“(1) cases, and matters and proceedings in cases, under the Bankruptcy Act [former Title 11, Bankruptcy] that are pending immediately before such date in the bankruptcy courts continued by section 404(a) of the Act of November 6, 1978 (Public Law 95–598; 92 Stat. 2687) [formerly set out as a note preceding section 151 of this title], and“(2) cases under title 11 of the United States Code, and proceedings arising under title 11 of the United States Code or arising in or related to cases under title 11 of the United States Code, that are pending immediately before such date in the bankruptcy courts continued by section 404(a) of the Act of November 6, 1978 (Public Law 95–598; 92 Stat. 2687).“(b) On the date of the enactment of this Act [July 10, 1984], there shall be transferred to the appropriate district court of the United States appeals from final judgments, orders, and decrees of the bankruptcy courts pending immediately before such date in the bankruptcy appellate panels appointed under section 405(c) of the Act of November 6, 1978 (Public Law 95–598; 92 Stat. 2685) [formerly set out as a note preceding section 1471 of this title].”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 21,723 cases (3,830 in the last 5 years), 1951–2026 · leading case: Menk v. Lapaglia (In Re Menk)

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Menk v. Lapaglia (In Re Menk) (1999) bap9 · cites it 54× “Now he is mired in a poorly-explored jurisdictional swamp involving the relationship of 28 U.S.C. § 1334 (a) to § 1334(b) and the difference between bankruptcy "cases" and bankruptcy "civil proceedings.”

Parmalat Capital Finance Ltd. v. Bank of America Corp. (2011) ca2 · cites it 18× “WESLEY, Circuit Judge: The questions presented are (1) whether the district court erred in exercising jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 (b); and (2) whether the district court properly declined to abstain from exercising that jurisdiction,…”

Nuveen Municipal Trust Ex Rel. Nuveen High Yield Municipal Bond Fund v. WithumSmith Brown, P.C. (2012) ca3 · cites it 18× “On remand, Withum and Lindabury raised a new basis for jurisdiction—that the action was “related to” Bayonne’s bankruptcy proceeding, and thus that the District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 (b). The Court accepted this basis for jurisdiction and re-entered its…”

Celotex Corp. v. Edwards (1995) scotus · cites it 14× “The court then acknowledged that "[t]he jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts has been extended to include stays on proceedings involving third parties under the auspices of 28 U. S. C. § 1334 (b)," id., at 318 , and that the Bankruptcy Court itself had ruled that the Section 105…”

Landry v. Exxon Pipeline Co. (2001) lamb · cites it 34× “The Defendants again premised jurisdiction for this removal on 28 U.S.C. § 1334 (b), asserting that “[t]he possible distribution of NEG’s insurance proceeds are property of the bankruptcy estate and will affect the bankruptcy estate.”

Veldekens v. GE HFS Holdings, Inc. (In Re Doctors Hospital 1997, L.P.) (2006) txsb · cites it 26× “In Wood, the Fifth Circuit set forth that a suit is a “related to” proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 (b) if the outcome of the proceeding “could conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy.”

George P. Stoe v. William E. Flaherty David Carpenter James Carpenter William Smelas Robert Sunderman Ronald Statile (2006) ca3 · cites it 12× “In addition, the District Court’s prior order denying Stoe’s motion for mandatory abstention is renewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 (d). We are cognizant that decisions not to remand are “not reviewable by appeal or otherwise by the court of appeals under section 158(d), 1291, or…”

In Re SE Hornsby & Sons Sand and Gravel Co. (1985) lamb · cites it 39× “The essence of his motion is that the Bankruptcy Court cannot decide state law issues and that when a state law issue arises, the Bankruptcy Court must abstain under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 (c)(2). The motion and its accompanying memorandum are without foundation and completely misread…”

Personette v. Kennedy (In Re Midgard Corp.) (1997) bap10 · cites it 19× “§ 1452 (a); and (4) mandatory abstention under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 (c)(2) was not required as a matter of law.”

Lain v. Watt (In re Dune Energy, Inc.) (2017) txwb · cites it 22× “Bankruptcy Jurisdiction Framework Bankruptcy subject matter jurisdiction is created and granted to federal district courts by 28 U.S.C. § 1334 . In turn, by statute, federal district courts are authorized to refer bankruptcy cases and proceedings to bankruptcy courts, 28 U.”

Geruschat v. Ernst Young LLP (In Re Seven Fields Development Corp.) (2007) ca3 · cites it 11× “§ 1452 (b) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy 9027(d), or, in the alternative, abstain from exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 (c)(1) and (c)(2). In this motion, appellants argued that the notice of removal was proeedurally deficient in that Ernst & Young erroneously…”

Aheong v. Mellon Mortgage Co. (In Re Aheong) (2002) bap9 · cites it 13× “" 28 U.S.C. § 1334 (b) (emphasis added). As we discuss further below, it is significant that only the latter two categories refer to "cases.”

Show all 21,723 citing cases →

— 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a) — 27 cases

Burtch v. Huston (In Re USDigital, Inc.) (2011) deb

Aero-Fastener, Inc. v. Sierracin Corp. (In Re Aero-Fastener, Inc.) (1994) mab

Levovitz v. Verrazano Holding Corp. (In Re Verrazano Holding Corp.) (1988) nyeb

Melikian Enterprises, LLLP v. Steven D. McCormick (2017) ca8

Layng v. Garcia (In re Garcia) (2018) ilnb

— 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) — 41 cases

Nuveen Municipal Trust Ex Rel. Nuveen High Yield Municipal Bond Fund v. WithumSmith Brown, P.C. (2012) ca3 “On remand, Withum and Lindabury raised a new basis for jurisdiction—that the action was “related to” Bayonne’s bankruptcy proceeding, and thus that the District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 (b). The Court accepted this basis for jurisdiction and re-entered its…”

Schlossberg v. Abell (In re Abell) (2016) mdb

Lusk v. Williams (In Re Williams) (2002) ganb

Zamora v. Jacobs (In Re Jacobs) (2009) ilnb

In Re Toxic Control Technologies, Inc. (1988) innb

— 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c) — 6 cases

Bank of New England, N.A. v. Hanson Industries, Inc. (In Re Hanson Industries, Inc.) (1988) mnb

Charitable DAF Fund, L.P. v. Alvarez & Marsal CRF Management, LLC (2025) txnb

Hoffmann v. Ondrajka (2024) mieb

Vitamins Online v. Heartwise (2024) utd

Washtenaw County, Michigan v. Ottoman (2024) mieb

— 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1) — 12 cases

Republic Reader's Service, Inc. v. Magazine Service Bureau, Inc. (In Re Republic Reader's Service, Inc.) (1987) txsb

Landry v. Exxon Pipeline Co. (2001) lamb “The Defendants again premised jurisdiction for this removal on 28 U.S.C. § 1334 (b), asserting that “[t]he possible distribution of NEG’s insurance proceeds are property of the bankruptcy estate and will affect the bankruptcy estate.”

Sears v. Sears (In re AFY, Inc.) (2017) bap8

In re McCurnin (2018) vaeb

In Re Terracor (1988) utd

— 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2) — 8 cases

Lain v. Watt (In re Dune Energy, Inc.) (2017) txwb “Bankruptcy Jurisdiction Framework Bankruptcy subject matter jurisdiction is created and granted to federal district courts by 28 U.S.C. § 1334 . In turn, by statute, federal district courts are authorized to refer bankruptcy cases and proceedings to bankruptcy courts, 28 U.”

In Re New York City Off-Track Betting Corp. (2010) nysb

Bevilacqua v. Bevilacqua (1997) nyed

Abraham v. Smith (2016) msnd

Joseph and Kirschenbaum LLP v. Tenenbaum (2020) nysd

— 28 U.S.C. § 1334(d) — 1 case

Directory International, Inc. v. Bates Manufacturing Co. (1988) txnd

— 28 U.S.C. § 1334(e) — 5 cases

In re Correra (2018) txnb

Shaford Companies v. Curr International Coffees, Inc. (In Re Shaford Companies) (1985) nhb

Pam Capital Funding LP v. National Gypsum Co. (In Re Kevco Inc.) (2004) ca5

In Re Crafts Retail Holding Corp. (2007) nyeb

Benny R. Knight, Sr. (2023) mssb

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.