Northwest Georgia Factoring Group v. Adventure Coast, LLC, 25-05067

Adventure Coast, LLC (Debtor) attempted to remove a Newton County Superior Court case to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, even though it was not a named party in the state action.
At the time of removal, Debtor had filed but not yet secured a ruling on a motion to intervene in the state case.
The Plaintiff in the bankruptcy adversary proceeding, Northwest Georgia Factoring Group, filed an Emergency Motion to Remand the case to state court.
Debtor opposed the Emergency Motion, arguing it should be allowed to remove based on its interest in the proceeding.
The Court held a hearing and required additional briefing on whether a non-party could effectuate removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1452.
The Court found the Debtor’s removal improper since it was not a named party and ordered the case remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can a non-party remove a state court action to bankruptcy court under § 1452?	Only a "party" named in the complaint can remove a case; removal by a non-party is a nullity.	Bankruptcy jurisdiction is broad and should allow a non-party/interested party to remove.	Only a named party can remove; non-party removal is not permitted.
Is subject matter jurisdiction enough to allow removal by interested non-parties?	Statutory language requires "party" status, not just jurisdictional connection.	The court’s bankruptcy jurisdiction should authorize removal by parties in interest.	The statutory right to removal is limited to parties; subject matter jurisdiction alone is insufficient.
Should the statute "party" be interpreted broadly to include "party in interest"?	"Party" is unambiguous and should not be expanded beyond those named in the case.	Cites authority suggesting the term could be interpreted broadly due to bankruptcy context.	The term "party" in § 1452 should not be broadened; Congress knows how to use "party in interest" but did not.
Is improper removal by a non-party a waivable procedural defect if not challenged?	Procedural defects must be timely raised or they are waived.	N/A (not central to Debtor's argument here)	In this case, the defect was timely challenged, so remand was required.

Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124 (removal under § 1452 is to be narrowly construed due to federalism concerns)
Md. Stadium Auth. v. Ellerbe Becket, Inc., 407 F.3d 255 (remand required if federal jurisdiction is doubtful, construction of removal statutes must be narrow)
In re Hearthside Baking Co., 391 B.R. 807 (reaffirms the plain meaning of "party" as someone named in the complaint)
Hayim v. Goetz (In re SOL, LLC), 419 B.R. 498 (a defendant must be served to have removal rights)
Pereira v. Dunnington (In re 47-49 Charles St.), 211 B.R. 5 (rejection of non-party's attempt to remove state action)