Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. v. BDO Seidman

July 21, 2009

THE CIT GROUP/EQUIPMENT FINANCING, INC., PLAINTIFF,
v.
BDO SEIDMAN, LLP., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ambrose, Chief District Judge

MDL No. 2021

OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT

Pending before the court is a Motion to Remand to the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County ("Arizona State Court") filed by Plaintiff, The CIT Group/Equipment Financing, Inc. ("CIT"). (Docket No. 38 at 9-cv-431 and Docket No. 32 at 9-mc-162).*fn1 Defendant, BDO Seidman, LLP ("BDO") has filed a Response and Brief in Opposition thereto (Docket Nos. 44-46) and Plaintiff filed a Reply in Further Support of the Motion for Remand. (Docket No. 49). After careful consideration of the same, said motion (Docket No. 38) is granted.

OPINION

I. Background

Seven months prior to the initiation of this lawsuit, on July 8, 2008, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania confirmed the Second Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation in the Le-Nature's case. (Docket No. 38-5).

On February 23, 2009, CIT brought this action in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona asserting a claim for negligent misrepresentation against BDO in connection with its audit opinions of the financial statements of the now-bankrupt Le-Nature's, Inc. ("Le Nature's") for the years ending 2003 and 2004. (Docket No. 1-2, ¶1). BDO then removed the action to the United States District Court for Arizona. (Docket No. 1). The District Court for Arizona then transferred the matter to this court on April 14, 2009, pursuant to the transfer order from the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML"). (Docket No. 26).

CIT has filed a Motion to Remand. (Docket No. 38). CIT makes three arguments in support of its Motion for Remand:

1) This court lacks "related to" subject matter jurisdiction (see, In re Resorts Int'l, Inc., 372 F.3d 154 (3d Cir. 2004));

2) In the alternative, the mandatory abstention rule applies (28 U.S.C. §1334(c)(2) and Stoe v. Flaherty, 436 F.3d 209 (3d Cir. 2006)); and

3) In the alternative, equitable considerations favor remand (28 U.S.C. §§1452(b) and 1334(c)(1).

(Docket No. 38). The issues are now ripe for review.

II. Legal ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.