Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04722/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04722-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH BREHNAN, D.M.D.; 

KENNETH BREHNAN, D.M.D., INC.

Plaintiffs, No. C-06-4722 PJH

v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

REMAND AND DENYING MOTION TO

TRANSFER 

ORTHALLIANCE, INC., et. al.

Defendants.

____________________________/

Plaintiffs’ motion for remand came on for hearing before this court on October 11,

2006. Plaintiffs, Kenneth Brehnan, D.M.D. and Kenneth Brehnan, D.M.D., Inc. (“plaintiffs”),

appeared through their counsel Ronald P. Goldman. Defendants, OrthAlliance, Inc., et. al.

(“defendants”), appeared through their counsel Gibson E. Pratt, Esq. and Neil J. Moran,

Esq. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ papers and considered the arguments of

counsel and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby rules

as follows, for the reasons stated at the hearing and summarized below.

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to remand this matter to Marin County Superior Court is

GRANTED. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b), once a claim is removed, “[t]he court to which

such claim or cause of action is removed may remand such claim or cause of action on any

equitable ground.” A decision whether to remand is within the judge’s discretion. McCarthy

v. Prince, 230 B.R. 414, 417 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1999). Courts evaluate a variety of factors in

conducting the equitable analysis, including judicial economy, comity considerations,

whether only state law questions are at issue, the expertise of the court where the matter

was originally brought, the impact that remand would have on the administration of the

Case 4:06-cv-04722-PJH Document 23 Filed 10/16/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

debtor’s bankruptcy case, the possibility of inconsistent results, and the extent of prejudice

to nondebtor parties. See In re Bay Area Material Handling, Inc., 1995 WL 747954, at *9

(N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 1995); Seale v. Owens, 134 B.R. 181, 184 (E.D. La. 1991); Western

Helicopters, Inc. v. Hiller Aviation, Inc. 97 B.R. 1, 2 (E.D. Cal. 1988). These factors warrant

remand here because (1) this litigation has been pending for over four years in state court

and Judge Sutro has had substantial contact with the parties, (2) only state law causes of

action are at issue, (3) the plaintiffs would suffer substantial prejudice if this case was

litigated in Louisiana, given the resources and time expended in California superior court,

(4) this case is factually distinguishable from the other pre-petition lawsuits in that it does

not relate to the events surrounding Hurricane Katrina, and (5) the defendants have failed

to demonstrate that adjudication of this case in California state court would hinder or result

in inconsistent results in the bankruptcy case.

2. In view of the above holding, defendants’ motion to transfer is DENIED as moot,

and the October 18, 2006 hearing on that motion is hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 16, 2006

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-04722-PJH Document 23 Filed 10/16/06 Page 2 of 2