Arlene Anne Townsend v. Rubin Schron
679 F. App'x 802
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Estate of Arlene Townsend obtained a $1.1 billion wrongful-death judgment in Florida state court against Trans Healthcare, Inc. (THI); Estate later filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment to add 16 real parties in interest, including Rubin Schron.
- The trial court granted the Motion to Amend ex parte; that decision was reversed on state-court appeal and the matter returned to state court.
- The fifteen purported real parties in interest (except Schron) removed the Motion to Amend to the Chapter 7 bankruptcy court for Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc. (FLTCI), asserting it was “related to” the bankruptcy.
- The bankruptcy court denied the Estate’s motion to remand; the Estate sought mandamus from the district court to compel remand, which denied the petition as the writ was not warranted.
- The district court held the Estate had adequate alternative remedies (e.g., leave to seek an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) or review after final judgment) and that the Estate’s right to the writ was not clear and indisputable.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, finding the bankruptcy court’s related-to jurisdiction was conceivably present and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is appropriate to compel remand of the Motion to Amend | Mandamus needed because removal to bankruptcy lacked subject-matter jurisdiction as the motion is not related to FLTCI’s bankruptcy | Mandamus is extraordinary; Estate has adequate alternatives (interlocutory appeal, post-final-judgment review) and removal could conceivably affect the debtor | Mandamus denied: adequate alternatives exist and Estate’s right to writ not clear and indisputable |
| Whether the Motion to Amend is “related to” the Chapter 7 bankruptcy | Motion to Amend is independent state-court matter not affecting bankruptcy estate | Motion could conceivably affect FLTCI’s rights/liabilities; resulted in a $23M settlement implicating the estate | Court found related-to jurisdiction conceivably present; district court didn’t err |
| Whether interlocutory review was inadequate or futile | Interlocutory appeal would be futile because district court likely to deny leave | Interlocutory appeal is an adequate forum regardless of likelihood of success | Court rejected futility argument; adequacy doesn’t depend on probable success |
| Whether delay/indefinite timing makes mandamus necessary | Bankruptcy court’s injunction against Schron makes final-judgment review indefinite and inadequate | Indefinite timing is not the same as inadequacy; mandamus not for bypassing normal appellate route | Delay alone insufficient to justify mandamus |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367 (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy; three-part test applies)
- In re Wellcare Health Plans, Inc., 754 F.3d 1234 (Eleventh Circuit reiteration of mandamus standards)
- Matter of Lemco Gypsum, Inc., 910 F.2d 784 (related-to test: conceivable effect on the estate)
- Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984 (formulation of related-to jurisdiction standard)
- In re BellSouth Corp., 334 F.3d 941 (mandamus not warranted merely to avoid relitigation or inconvenience)