United States v. Critical Fork Coal Corp. (In Re Critical Fork Coal Corp.)

18 B.R. 422, 1982 Bankr. LEXIS 5024, 8 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1097
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Virginia
DecidedJanuary 20, 1982
Docket13-62657
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 18 B.R. 422 (United States v. Critical Fork Coal Corp. (In Re Critical Fork Coal Corp.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Critical Fork Coal Corp. (In Re Critical Fork Coal Corp.), 18 B.R. 422, 1982 Bankr. LEXIS 5024, 8 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1097 (Va. 1982).

Opinion

JOINT OPINION AND ORDER

H. CLYDE PEARSON, Bankruptcy Judge.

The question before the Court is disposition of four proceedings “transferred” by the District Court for the Western District of Virginia to this Court. Three of the proceedings were “transferred” on the court’s own motion, and the fourth, Walden v. Tri-City Bank & Trust Co., was transferred on motion of plaintiff’s counsel.

Under the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 (the Code), federal district court is granted original and exclusive jurisdiction of cases filed under title 11 of the United States Code. 28 U.S.C. § 1471(a). The district court is further granted original but not exclusive jurisdiction of civil proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11. Id. at § 1471(b). The bankruptcy court is established as an adjunct to the district court, and is charged with exercising all the jurisdiction granted the district court. Id. at § 1471(c); see 1 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 3.01[l][c] at 3-33 (15th ed. 1980) [hereinafter cited as Collier].

Section 1471(d) of title 28 makes clear that either court may abstain from adjudication of a civil proceeding when such abstention is in the best interest of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1471(d). Neither the district court nor the bankruptcy court may abstain *424 from hearing a proceeding, however, when there is no other forum in which the matter may be heard. See Collier, supra, ¶ 3.01[l][f] at 3-53. It is clear that a court may abstain from hearing a proceeding on the motion of one of the parties to the action. Whether the court may decide to abstain sua sponte, however, is an open question. Id. at 3-54.

In any event, the continuation of a judicial proceeding against the debtor is expressly prohibited by the automatic stay in § 362(a) of the Code. The stay provision is “applicable to all entities,” presumably including a federal district court in which an action is pending. Further, the debtor is prohibited from incurring debt, other than in the ordinary course of business, without approval of the court after notice and a hearing. See 11 U.S.C. § 364(b). The debt- or’s continuance of litigation, or any judicial proceeding, incurs a debt that is generally not within the ordinary course of the debt- or’s business. The debtor may not, therefore, pursue that proceeding in any fashion without approval of this Court. In short, it appears that the filing of a petition for relief in this Court effectively stops any further action in proceedings involving the debtor pending in other courts, regardless of whether the debtor is plaintiff or defendant.

If either party to a pending action wishes to proceed with prosecution of the action, that party may pursue one of two procedural remedies. A party in interest may file a complaint in this Court for relief from the automatic stay to proceed in the court in which the action is pending. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(d). Alternatively, either party may file an application for removal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1478 1 Immediately upon the filing of the application, the case is, ipso facto, removed to this Court. See Interim Rule 7004; Local Rule 10.

In view of the foregoing discussion, it appears that the proceedings here under consideration are not properly before this Court. In only one of the proceedings in question was the action initiated by one of the parties, and in that case, the request was made in the form of an oral motion before the district court. In none of these proceedings has either party made an appropriate filing or paid the required filing fees for this Court to continue adjudication of the issues presented. 2

Accordingly, it is hereby

*425 ORDERED

that the parties in interest in each of the pending proceedings be given ten days from the date of entry of this Order to make a proper filing before this Court. At the end of the allotted time, any proceeding for which no such filing has been made will be forthwith DISMISSED.

1

. According to Local Rule 10, an application for removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1478 is deemed an adversary proceeding to be initiated by the filing of a complaint and payment of attendant fees.

2

. Present Bankruptcy Rule 703 directs that an adversary proceeding is initiated by the filing of a complaint. (The proposed new Rule 7002 is in accord.)

The Judicial Conference, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1930(b) has established a filing fee of $60.00 for the filing of a complaint instituting an adversary proceeding. (Memo of March 27, 1981, from Berkeley Wright, Chief, Division of Bankruptcy, Administrative Office of the United States Courts.) This is the same fee charged by the Clerk of the District Court for instituting any civil action in that Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).
28 U.S.C. § 771(c) places the responsibility for collection of and directs the Clerk of each Bankruptcy Court to pay into the Treasury “all fees, costs and other matters collected by him, except uncollected fees not required by act of Congress to be prepaid.” This provision and others related to the Clerks of the Bankruptcy Courts are not effective until April 1, 1984.

(Section 402(b) of the Bankruptcy Reform Act.) However, United States Bankruptcy Judges are given authority during the period of transition to appoint a clerk who is given all the powers, rights and duties during the period of transition that the clerk will have as of April 1, 1984. Section 404(e) of the Bankruptcy Reform Act. The Administrative Office of the United States Courts has published “Bankruptcy Statistical Instructions” pursuant to Public Law 95-598, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, directs that separate bankruptcy proceeding dockets be maintained for any “proceeding, instituted by complaint

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

White v. City of Santee (In Re White)
186 B.R. 700 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)
Bailey v. Campbell
829 P.2d 667 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1992)
Merchants & Farmers Bank of Dumas, Ark. v. Hill
122 B.R. 539 (E.D. Arkansas, 1990)
Dyer v. Weedon
769 S.W.2d 711 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1989)
In Re Convention Masters, Inc.
46 B.R. 339 (D. Maryland, 1985)
Browning v. Navarro
743 F.2d 1069 (Fifth Circuit, 1984)
Howard v. Howard
670 S.W.2d 737 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1984)
Donovan v. Sunmark Industries, Inc.
461 N.E.2d 321 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1983)
Murders v. Bieley
424 So. 2d 973 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 B.R. 422, 1982 Bankr. LEXIS 5024, 8 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1097, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-critical-fork-coal-corp-in-re-critical-fork-coal-corp-vawb-1982.