28 U.S.C. § 1452
Removal of claims related to bankruptcy cases
1990—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 101–650 inserted before period at end “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”.
Section effective
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,546
cases (314 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: California Public Employees' Retirement System v. WorldCom, Inc.
California Public Employees' Retirement System v. WorldCom, Inc. (2004)
“This is a close question, as it involves a direct conflict between two unambiguous statutes — Section 22(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 2 which bars removal of individual Securities Act claims, and 28 U.S.C. § 1452 (a), 3 which permits removal of claims that are “related to”…”
In re: Malcolm Curtis and Judith Curtis (2017)
“*443 This appeal presents the question whether 28 U.S.C. § 1452 authorizes removal of a case from a federal district court to a bankruptcy court.”
Miles v. Okun (2005)
“16186 IN RE: MILES bankruptcy court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452 (a). They then filed motions to dismiss the removed complaints, contending that federal law preempted all of the state law causes of action pleaded in the complaints.”
Mitchell v. Fukuoka Daiei Hawks Baseball Club (In Re Mitchell) (1997)
“OPINION (1) REMANDING REMOVED ACTION BACK TO DISTRICT COURT ON THE GROUND THAT REMOVAL WAS IMPROPER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1452 (a), AND ON THE ALTERNATIVE GROUND THAT IF REMOVAL WAS PROPER PURSUANT TO 28 U.”
Geruschat v. Ernst Young LLP (In Re Seven Fields Development Corp.) (2007)
“On November 5, 2004, Ernst & Young filed a notice of removal of the Butler County case with the clerk of the bankruptcy court, removing the case to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under Rule 9027(a) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy…”
George P. Stoe v. William E. Flaherty David Carpenter James Carpenter William Smelas Robert Sunderman Ronald Statile (2006)
“The defendants removed the case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452 , which provides for the removal of claims related to a bankruptcy case.”
Landry v. Exxon Pipeline Co. (2001)
“On August 9, 1999, Shell and Exxon, joined by Panaco and the Insurers, 7 again removed the lawsuit to the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1452 . The Defendants again premised jurisdiction for this removal on 28 U.”
County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp. (2022)
“The panel rejected the energy companies’ argument that the district court had removal jurisdiction over the complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1452 (a) because they were related to bankruptcy cases involving Peabody Energy Corp.”
Bavelis v. Doukas (In Re Bavelis) (2011)
“28 The Quick Capital Lawsuit was removed by the Debtor before the Petition Date and accordingly was not removed pursuant to the bankruptcy-removal statute of 28 U.S.C. § 1452 (a). 29 Rather, the *879 Quick Capital Lawsuit was removed pursuant to 28 U.”
New York City Employees' Retirement System v. Ebbers (In Re WorldCom, Inc. Securities Litigation) (2003)
“” In addition to staying litigation, the bankruptcy statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1452 (“Section 1452”), provides for the removal from state court to federal court of actions “related to” a bankruptcy.”
Koken v. Reliance Group Holdings, Inc. (In Re Reliance Group Holdings, Inc.) (2002)
“The Emergency Petition was removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452 and was docketed as adversary number 01-559.”
In Re Nat. Century Fin. Enterpr., Inc., Inv. Lit. (2004)
“Certain defendants removed the cases to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1452 (a), alleging that the cases are "related to" the bankruptcy of National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc.”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a) — 6 cases
In Re Boyer (1988)
— 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) — 7 cases
Bobroff v. Continental Bank (1985)
Breakell v. 3M Company (2019)
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.