The Court considered a motion to remand and for abstention of a post-petition declaratory judgment action filed in the state court concerning certain rights to mine rock that had been transferred pre-petition from debtor to an entity created by debtor’s managing member. The Court determined that it had subject matter jurisdiction over this matter because the complaint merely re-characterized a fraudulent transfer dispute resolved through an order denying the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee as a contract dispute and because resolving the dispute over rights to mine rock required construing and potentially enforcing this Court’s order denying the motion for appointment of a trustee. Abstention was not required because the proceeding involved core proceedings (i.e., fraudulent transfer litigation and interpretation of the Court’s own order). As to removal directly to bankruptcy court, the Court agreed with the majority rule that removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1452 can be made directly to the bankruptcy court.  As to venue, 28 U.S.C. § 1409(e) was inapplicable, and even if it did apply, venue in the Northern District of Georgia was proper. Finally, the right to a jury trial over certain claims does not require that the entire proceeding be remanded because such claims can be tried in district court.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICTION

Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Granting Judgment for Plaintiff.  The parties disputed whether a security deed contained the requisite signatures and formalities to comply with Georgia law.  The Court ruled that the placement of the notary public’s signature within a certificate of acknowledgment indicated that his signature was an acknowledgment rather than an attestation.  Further, the Court ruled that the notary public’s failure to record the date on which the notarial act of acknowledgment took place rendered the acknowledgment invalid, making the deed patently defective under Georgia law and therefore avoidable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544.

Order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss, denying motion of the Nonparties to quash subpoena, granting Plaintiff’s motion to compel, and setting a status conference. Plaintiff initiated an adversary proceeding objecting to discharge. This order resolved three primary issues:
First, Defendant, who is also the Debtor in the lead bankruptcy case, moved to dismiss the adversary proceeding for Plaintiff’s failure to properly effect service on Defendant’s attorney. It was undisputed that Plaintiff failed to properly effect service on Defendant’s attorney. However, the Court found that Plaintiff properly served Defendant, and that Defendant’s attorney waived insufficient service by, among other things, failing to timely raise his defense. Therefore, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Second, the Nonparties moved to quash a subpoena issued by Plaintiff’s counsel for the purpose of deposing the Nonparties. Plaintiff had previously deposed the Nonparties in Defendant’s lead bankruptcy case. The Nonparties asserted that FRCP 30(a)(2)(A)(ii) required Plaintiff to obtain leave of court to depose Nonparties in the adversary proceeding because the “deponent had already been deposed in the case.” The Court disagreed, concluding that “case,” in the context of FRCP 30(a)(2)(A)(ii), refers to the adversary proceeding, not the title 11 umbrella as a whole. Therefore, because the Nonparties had not already been deposed in the case, the Court concluded that Plaintiff could depose Nonparties without leave of court.
Third, Plaintiff filed two motions to compel, which were deemed unopposed because no response to either motion was filed.