*1 851 however, right litigate serving appellants’ to their while In the federal forum should the Penn- Burford, it claims court abstained the district courts, jurisdictional sylvania or other dismiss the rather than stayed the action reasons, adjudicate entry fail to them. The Quackenbush, Supreme complaint. prevents than a dismissal of a rather that such a course in dictum indicated Court becoming time-barred those claims proper: is lacking in jurisdictiоn be somehow should outright dismissal or remand Unlike preclusion Commonwealth suit, merely staying ... an order a federal estop- and collateral doctrines of res abnegation not constitute the action “dоes prevent re-litigation in the more pel will contrary, it is a judicial duty. theOn likely proceeds judgment. event court it. discharge of There productive wise of decision for its only postponement fruition.” best III. аt -, (quoting Loui at
Id. S.Ct. accordingly affirm the order of the We will Thibodaux, v. Light Co. siana Power & district court. 1073, 29, 1070, 25, 3 L.Ed.2d U.S. S.Ct. (1959)). Thus, continued: the Court applied in which we have In those eases dam- principles to
traditional abstention actions, only permitted a
ages we withhold action until the
federal court to is, cоncluded; that proceedings have state COFFIN, Appellant, In re Tristram applying courts permitted federal we have damages principles in actions abstention permitted stay, we have not enter а but BANK. FEDERAL SAVINGS MALVERN altogether[.] the action
them to dismiss by the Ninth per se rule described however, is, rigid than our more Court of strictly precedents require. We have eases, equitable limited abstention the doctrine to all havе extended rather court is asked to eases in which a federal discretionary relief. provide some form of Rehearing Panel Sur Petition for Moreover, by our decision as demonstrated Rehearing In Suggestion for Thibodaux, have not held that ab- we Banc Oct. completely inappli- principles are stention might damages actions. cable Burford post- court’s decision to support federal damаges action adjudication of a
pone by the state courts
pending the resolution question of law. disputed
of a state (cita at -, at 1727-28 116 S.Ct.
Id. omitted). quotation marks and internal
tions think the district than abdi- entirely appropriate. Rather jurisdic- judicial duty to exercise its
cate its
tion, simply postponed the the district proceed- until the
exercise of Court reach their
ings in the Commonwealth thе sensi- approach This retains
conclusion. comity
tivity for concerns of federalism abstention, pre- while
implicated Burford *2 Chester, Phillips (argued),
Mark D. West Bank, PA, Ap- Savings for Malvern Federal pellee. MANSMANN,
Before: BECKER and *, and SCHWARZER Judge. District OF THE COURT OPINION Judge. Coffin, an Tristram This is debtor, from an order of the district court affirming bankruptcy an court’s order dеnied styled debtor’s motion hen avoidance.” Because we appeal, we re- court lack mand directions. parcels of
Coffin was the owner of three property real on which Malvern Fеderal Sav- ings mortgages Bank loans it held to secure had made to Coffin. When Coffin fell arrears, the Bank foreclosed on one of the voluntary mortgages. Coffin Chap- in the court under Bankruptcy ter 13 of the Cоde. The Bank proof filed a of claim which set forth the mortgages. arrearages on the three Coffin then filed an Amended 13 Plan provided arrearages. which for some of the Bank, objection from the the bank- Without 19, 1993, ruptcy court on October confirmed the Plan. later, 23, 1994, months on
Nine
June
granting
Bank moved “for an Order
stay
by 11
provided
from the automatic
Section 362 in order that said creditor
may pursue its state foreсlosure remedies to
against
property
its lien
real
enforce
debtor_”
1, 1994,
September
On
follow-
(1)
hearing,
ing a
the court
directed Coffin to
payments
make
Bank in addition to
(2)
Plan;
directed
those
providе
Coffin to file an amended Plan to
claim;
adequately for the Bank’s secured
(3)
ordered the automatic
to remain in
place pending
hearing
further
on the motion.
motion,
opposition
to the Bank’s
Ziоn,
Jeffrey
(argued),
S. Wilson
Benson
judica-
then filed his motion to dismiss as res
PA,
Associates, Rosemont,
Benson Zion and
ta the Bank’s motion for relief from the
Coffin,
Appellant.
Following hearing
automatic
held on
for Tristam
Schwаrzer,
California, sitting by designation.
William W.
Senior United
Honorable
Judge for the Northern District of
States District
firmly grounded
on
1, 1994,
is-
is nonetheless
December
bankrupt-
justiciability
ripeness.
order, denying the
opinion and
sued
cy
the Bank’s lien was
from automatic
for relief
Bank’s motion
—that
discharged
that at the end of the
motion to dismiss
granting
it would be free to exercise its state law
case
The court found
that extent.
*3
mortgage
an advi-
remedies under its
—was
by the Debtor’s Con-
is bound
[the Bank]
denying
opinion.
Its order
to the distribu-
Plan with
firmed
“cryptic” motion for reconsideration decided
provided thereunder and there-
tion to it
controversy
parties:
no actuаl
between the
appropriate,
from
is not
fore relief
had not moved for an order of lien
Plan.
being
there
no default
(it
could have
avoidance
is doubtful
he
(Op.7.)
522(f));
event,
any
§
done so
see U.S.C.
The сourt then added:
of
lien survived was
the issue
whether the
However,
that [the Bank’s]
we further find
adjudication;
not before the court for
Gay
Property is not
lien on the
Street
“finding” it made did not determine
the
proceeding
disсharged by
in a
whether the Bank would succeed
subse-
lifting
the
at the
upon
of
quent
action in state court.
If
sooner, [the
or
conclusion of this case
survived,
the
the lien
it survived
reason of
law
to exercise its stаte
will be free
Bank]
prior proceedings,
including the confirmed
mortgage
applica-
under its
remedies
Plan,
“finding.”
of
not because
the
(Ibid.)
ble law.
go
Were the Bank to
to state court to fore-
mortgage,
right to do so would
close on its
its
appeal from the order
Bank did not
light
that court in
have to be determined
denying relief from the automatic
Cof-
interpretation
of
of the terms of the Con-
its
fin, however, although
prevailing party
the
Plan,
of the
firmed
as well as the terms
(the
having granted his
on the motion
and,
course,
mortgage, applicable state law
of
having entered no or-
dismissal motion and
findings
put
of fact. To
it diffеr-
that court’s
him),
styled as
filed a motion
der adverse
ently,
a
had the
lien avoidance.” The
survive,
“finding” that the Bank’s lien did not
court,
“framed in a
describing this motion as
proceeding
in the foreclosure
the state court
suggests
cryptic manner since it
somewhat
ordering
clearly
precluded
not
was the
that a motion for lien avoidance
foreclosure, if
law the lien
applicable
a
subject
that are at thе heart
of the motions
enforceable;
finding,
not
remained
such
interpret-
request
for reconsideration”
decision,
necessary
would be
being
to the
“challeng[mg]
as
this Court’s
ed the motion
give
to res
mere dictum and not
rise
...
the Bank’s liens
conclusion
estoppel.
or collateral
discharge_”
survive
the
consistent
oldest and most
n.l)
“The
motion was denied. Coffin
(Op.l.
justiciability is
law of
thread
the federal
which,
appealed
district court
advisory
give
that federal courts will
...
stating
[to]
“the issue in this
Miller, Cooper, Feder
Wright,
opinions.” 13
certain liens survive
whether
concern[]
3529.1,
Procedure,
p.
§
al Practice
bankruptcy procеeding,” (Op.l.) affirmed.
ed.1984).
(2d
ques
the
have addressed
necessary
present pur
It is not
controversy
justiciable
exists—
tion when a
bankruptcy court’s rea
poses to examine the
the
ripeness
the rubric of
althоugh under
—in
“finding” that
soning that
led to its
declaratory
Al
relief.
context of suits
dis
mortgage
had not been
Bank’s
lien
invoke the declar
though
did not
Chapter 13 Plan.
charged
the confirmed
statute,
§
atory
28 U.S.C.
question
that “find
The threshold
is whether
posture is some
in its
case before us
and,
turn,
denying recon
ing,”
the order
seeking
analogous
one
a declaration
what
court’s order af
sideration
Inc.
Step-Saver
Systems,
Data
rights.
it,
firming
appeаlable orders.
constitute
(3rd Cir.
Technology,
ruptcy interpret the Plan with re- court to having judges lant been submitted to the who spect оf the survival of its hen, opposing participated that advanced in the decision of this positions, does not alter the conclusion judges to all the other circuit in available in what the court said was аn service, judge and no active who concurred advisory opinion. That seems clear under having rehearing, the decision asked for Step-Saver, for a where asked decla- majority judges circuit оf the circuit non-liability ration of but the regular having active service not voted for ripe controversy. dismissed for lack of a banc, rehearing the court in Nor does it matter rehearing is DENIED. imminent since the fact remains that advi- judicial opinion that will not have a effect on the outcome of the future fore- proceedings.
closure jurisdic parties urge Both us to take REICH, Secretary Labor, Robert B. help tion to resolve matters them Department on, move cannot be conferred Labor, Petitioner, sympathetic consent. While we are plight, making, it is of their own result ing parties’ Occupa- from the lack оf care and atten D.M. SABIA COMPANY given proceedings, tion in Safety tional and Health Review cluding the formulation of the Plan. The Commission, Respondents. present problem could and should have been anticipatеd by appropriate provision in the jurisdic Plan. The court retains United States Court of case, however, proper tion of the and it is the post-confirmation problems forum to resolve appropriate proceedings. See Presumably the court will grant discharge, now close
thereby continuing free the Bank to test the
validity by bringing of its lien a foreclosure
action. panel rehearing only. As to