Skip to main content

Page Banner(Taxonomy)

judge stapleton

Stoe v. Flaherty

Ruling
Court ruled that mandatory abstention applied to cases removed to federal court including the case of a former officer for unpaid severance benefits since the case was related to but did not arise in a bankruptcy case, did not arise under the Code, and was started in state court.
Procedural posture

Plaintiff former officer sought review of a decision of the district court, which denied the officer's motion for mandatory abstention under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 after defendants, current and former officers of the officer's former employer, removed the officer's action for unpaid severance benefits to federal court. Defendants were also ultimately successful on the merits of the case.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Stoe v. Flaherty Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Court :
Judge or Jurisdiction information not available
opinion summary, case decided on January 23, 2006 , LexisNexis #0206-023