Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01421/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01421-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 

---

1

An official caption containing a complete list of parties is on file and available

for inspection in the Office of the Clerk of Court, United States Court of Appeals for

the Eighth Circuit. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1421

___________

In re: George L. Young; Professional *

Business Services, Inc.; United *

Livestock Services, LLC, f/k/a MFA *

Livestock Services, LLC; Rio Baca, *

Inc., a/k/a Rio Baca Ranch, a/k/a Rio * 

Baca Cattle Co., a/k/a Rio Baca *

Feedlot; Rio Timba, Inc., *

*

Debtors. *

_________________ *

*

Alfred Neuberger Cattle Company, * Appeal from the United States

Inc.; Lan Cattle Company; E&J Cattle * Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Company; Alan J. Neuberger; U.S. * for the Eighth Circuit.

Bank National Association, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellees, *

*

v. *

*

George L. Young; Professional *

Business Services, Inc., *

*

Appellants.1 *

Appellate Case: 06-1421 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/06/2006 Entry ID: 2115828
2

Section 303(a), in relevant part, provides:

An involuntary case may be commenced only under chapter 7 or 11 of

this title, and only against a person, except a farmer, family farmer, or a

corporation that is not a moneyed, business, or commercial corporation,

that may be a debtor under the chapter under which such case is

commenced.

-2-

___________

Submitted: October 20, 2006

Filed: December 6, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

George L. Young (Young) contends the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction

because 11 U.S.C. § 303(a)2

 divested the court of subject matter jurisdiction over

involuntary bankruptcy petitions brought against farmers. In In re Marlar, 432 F.3d

813, 814-15 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam), we concluded § 303(a) provides farmers

with an affirmative defense to the commencement of involuntary bankruptcy petitions,

and it does not strip the bankruptcy courts of subject matter jurisdiction. Young

concedes In re Marlar is the controlling precedent and asks us to recommend to the

en banc court that In re Marlar be overruled. We conclude In re Marlar controls, and

we further believe In re Marlar was correctly decided and therefore decline the

invitation to recommend this appeal be heard en banc. 

We affirm the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1421 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/06/2006 Entry ID: 2115828
-3-

Appellate Case: 06-1421 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/06/2006 Entry ID: 2115828