Breakell v. 3M Company
3:19-cv-00583
D. Conn.Jul 16, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Adam Breakell sued multiple defendants in Connecticut Superior Court for asbestos exposure-related products liability, fraud, and premises liability; trial was set for September 17, 2019.
- Imerys Talc America, Inc. filed Chapter 11 in the District of Delaware on February 13, 2019.
- On April 18, 2019, Johnson & Johnson removed Breakell’s state-court action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(b) and 1452(a), asserting the case was “related to” Imerys’s bankruptcy based on indemnity agreements, shared insurance, and talc supply links.
- Johnson & Johnson also sought venue transfer/coordination in the District of Delaware; a Delaware court denied an emergency provisional transfer request and questioned the asserted emergency.
- Breakell moved to remand; the district court evaluated timeliness of removal (bankruptcy Rule 9027 v. §1446), subject-matter jurisdiction under the “related to” test, and whether equitable factors warranted remand.
- The court found removal timely under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027, but exercised equitable discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) to remand the case to Connecticut Superior Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of removal (which deadline governs) | Breakell: §1446 30‑day deadline applies; removal untimely; removal papers also incomplete | J&J: Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027 90‑day deadline applies; removal timely and adequate | Held: Rule 9027 governs; removal within 90 days was timely |
| Subject‑matter jurisdiction under bankruptcy “related to” test | Breakell: Claims are state‑law personal injury matters not sufficiently related; indemnity contingent and remote | J&J: Claims conceivably affect debtor’s estate via indemnity/insurance; related to Imerys bankruptcy | Held: Court assumed potential relatedness but did not rest decision solely on it; jurisdictional showing contested |
| Equitable remand under 28 U.S.C. §1452(b) | Breakell: Equitable factors (state‑law predominance, prejudice, comity) favor remand; abstention appropriate | J&J: Federal forum appropriate; Delaware bankruptcy proceeding should resolve coordination and indemnity issues; abstention inapplicable | Held: Exercising equitable discretion, court remanded—state‑law predominance and prejudice to plaintiff strongly favored remand |
| Effect on bankruptcy estate / relatedness magnitude | Breakell: Minimal effect; case predated bankruptcy and was trial‑ready | J&J: Adverse judgments statewide contributed to Imerys filing; inclusion is necessary for efficient resolution | Held: Effect on estate was neutral; degree of relatedness neutral overall; other equitable factors outweighed transfer/coordination concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cuyahoga Equip. Corp., 980 F.2d 110 (2d Cir.) (defining the “related to” bankruptcy standard as any conceivable effect on the estate)
- In re Quigley Co., 676 F.3d 45 (2d Cir.) (discussing breadth of related‑to jurisdiction in bankruptcy context)
- In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Secs. LLC, 740 F.3d 81 (2d Cir.) (noting the expansive scope of interests that may trigger related‑to jurisdiction)
- Blockbuster, Inc. v. Galeno, 472 F.3d 53 (2d Cir.) (burden on removing defendant to establish federal jurisdiction)
- Lupo v. Human Affairs Int’l, Inc., 28 F.3d 269 (2d Cir.) (removal statute construed narrowly; doubts resolved against removability)
- Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (U.S.) (removal procedures are to be strictly construed)
- In re Pan Am. Corp., 950 F.2d 839 (2d Cir.) (district courts have discretion on abstention and transfer powers)