Narrative Opinion Summary
In the case involving Appellants Cathedral and the Village of Garden City, the court denied a motion for rehearing related to the non-appealability of a district court’s remand order under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b). The appellants argued that the remand order, not being based on equitable grounds, should be appealable, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Quackenbush v. Allstate Insurance Co. However, the court clarified that Quackenbush, which involved a different legal framework concerning appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the Cohen doctrine, was not applicable to the present case. The court emphasized that § 1452(b) explicitly prohibits appeals of remand orders based on equitable grounds, which was not addressed in Quackenbush. Additionally, the court distinguished between judicially created abstention doctrines addressed in Quackenbush and statutory abstention under sections 1334 and 1452, which govern the current case. The court concluded that the remand's non-appealability aligns with § 1452(b), reaffirming the denial of the appellants' motion for rehearing.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Supreme Court's Decision in Quackenbush v. Allstate Insurance Co.subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court distinguished the current case from Quackenbush, noting that the latter involved a remand order appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and based on the Cohen doctrine, which does not apply here.
Reasoning: The court clarifies that while both cases involve the appealability of remand orders and the intersection of equity and abstention, the Supreme Court's decisions in Quackenbush are not applicable here due to differing legal statutes and doctrines.
Burford Abstention and Equitable Reliefsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court noted the Quackenbush ruling on Burford abstention, which allows remands only for cases seeking equitable relief, does not apply as this case does not involve judicially created abstention but rather statutory abstention under sections 1334 and 1452.
Reasoning: The Quackenbush ruling emphasized that federal courts have discretion in granting equitable remedies, contrasting this with their obligation to provide legal remedies. The current case does not involve a judicially created abstention doctrine but is instead governed by sections 1334 and 1452, which mandate abstention for certain bankruptcy-related suits.
Non-Appealability of Remand Orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied the appellants' motion for rehearing, emphasizing that the remand order's non-appealability is explicitly governed by § 1452(b), which prohibits appeal of remand orders based on equitable grounds.
Reasoning: The motion for rehearing by Appellants Cathedral and the Village of Garden City is denied. The court emphasizes that its ruling on non-appealability is based on the explicit prohibition in § 1452(b), which was not considered in Quackenbush.