Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01153/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01153-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1452 Removal of Claims Related to Bankruptcy Cases

---

1 

19cv1153-LAB (JLB)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENALASYS CORPORATION,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JAMES ERIC TAYLOR, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 19cv1153-LAB (JLB) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

REMAND OR ABSTENTION;

AND

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

TRANSFER VENUE 

[Docket numbers 4, 6.] 

Plaintiff Enalasys Corporation removed this case1 from California state court, 

citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 1452.

According to the operative complaint, Enalasys’ shareholders fired and 

replaced the board of directors around December 6, 2018. The new board in turn 

fired all the corporation’s officers, including its president, Eric Taylor. Enalasys 

alleges that after Taylor found out he had been removed, he unauthorizedly 

1 This case includes only three of the five claims from Enalasys’ operative 

complaint. Eric Taylor’s cross-complaint was not removed, and remains pending 

but stayed in state court.

Case 3:19-cv-01153-LAB-JLB Document 15 Filed 03/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 10
2

19cv1153-LAB (JLB)

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

withdrew over $200 from the corporate bank account, refused to cooperate with 

the transfer of power, and withheld over $6 million worth of corporate assets. 

Enalasys brought action in Imperial County Superior Court, obtaining a temporary 

restraining order and preliminary injunction. On May 17, it filed its third amended 

complaint. Enalasys says it is in possession of less than $50,000 worth of the $6 

million in assets. The $6 million figure is based on an earlier representation by 

Taylor, so it is unclear whether the allegedly missing assets are still worth that 

much. Nevertheless, according to the complaint and injunction, Enalasys is 

seeking both money and important company assets from Taylor, including real 

property, software, technology, access to accounts, and records, many of which 

are identified as necessary to keep running the company. (See Docket no. 6, Ex. 

B (order granting preliminary injunction).)

On May 23, 2019, Defendants filed a demurrer. That same day, Enalaysis 

filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central 

District of California, Santa Ana division, which bears case number 19bk11987-

MW. Enalasys seeks to have this action transferred to the Central District.

Defendants have moved to remand or abstain.

Motion to Remand or Abstain

Defendants do not dispute that this case is related to the Chapter 11 

bankruptcy proceeding, and the Court therefore has original jurisdiction over it 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). Instead, they argue the Court is required to abstain 

under § 1334(c)(2). Alternatively, they argue the Court should exercise its 

discretion to abstain under § 1334(c)(1).

Defendants Taylor and Greennet IOT, LLC ask the Court to take judicial 

notice of Enalasys’ web page, which includes its address in El Centro in Imperial 

County, along with a map, taken from the website www.enalasys.net. It appears 

they intend this to support the argument that Santa Ana is an inconvenient venue

and that El Centro is convenient for Enalasys. Enalasys disputes the address, 

Case 3:19-cv-01153-LAB-JLB Document 15 Filed 03/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 10
3

19cv1153-LAB (JLB)

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

however, and it is not clear the address as given on the web page is current. 

Defendants are not sure of the date, but believe it appeared online in either 

December, 2018 or January, 2019. Enalasys disputes that this is its current 

address. The address on Enalasys’ website (at the address given in the requires 

for notice) is in Newport Beach. The Court can, and does, take judicial notice of 

the location of El Centro, but as to other facts, the request is denied.

Mandatory Abstention

The Court must abstain under § 1334(c)(2) if five conditions are met: (1) the 

motion is timely; (b) the claim is based on state law; (c) the claim is not based on 

bankruptcy law and did not arise in a bankruptcy case; (d) the claim could not have 

been filed in federal court absent bankruptcy jurisdiction; and (e) the claim must 

be capable of being timely adjudicated in state court. See Bally Fitness Corp. v. 

Contra Costa Retail Ctr., 384 B.R. 566, 569 (Bkrtcy. N.D. Cal., 2008). The absence 

of even one element means abstention is not mandatory. Id. at 572. Although 

describing it as “mandatory” might suggest it is not jurisdictional, and can be 

waived. In re Brumfiel, 2015 WL 5895213 at *6 (BAP 10th Cir. Oct. 8, 2015).

Three of the five requirements for mandatory abstention are arguably met 

here. For reasons discussed below, (c) does not appear to be met. But most 

notably, Defendants have not met their burden of showing that the case can be 

timely adjudicated in state court. See In re First Alliance Mortg. Co., 269 B.R. 449, 

455 (C.D. Cal., 2001) (“[T]he party moving for abstention will bear the burden of 

demonstrating that a state court action can be timely adjudicated.”); In re 

Nationwide Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc., 130 B.R. 768, 779 (Bkrtcy. S.D. Oh. 1991) 

(rejecting unsubstantiated assertion that state court action could be timely 

adjudicated).

Enalasys represents that the entire case in state court is stayed, pursuant to 

the mandatory stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1), and that to have the case heard 

in state court, it would have to initiate a new adversary proceeding in the Central 

Case 3:19-cv-01153-LAB-JLB Document 15 Filed 03/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 10
4

19cv1153-LAB (JLB)

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

District’s bankruptcy court. (Docket no. 8-1 at 12:23–28.) Because the automatic 

stay does not forbid claims by a debtor in possession, see In re White, 186 B.R. 

700, 704 (BAP 9th Cir., 1995), this apparently means the state court has entered a 

stay.2 In any event, all activity in the state court docket seems to have stopped at 

the time of the bankruptcy filing, and nothing in the record suggests it might restart

before the bankruptcy proceedings conclude.

Defendants have not disputed that the state case is subject to the automatic 

stay, and have not adequately responded to Enalasys’ argument that the claims 

could not be timely adjudicated if remanded. Rather, in a separate section they 

argue that the case “can be at issue and set for trial within 6 month[s] after the stay 

is lifted and a trial set within 1 year after that if [ ] normal procedures are followed.” 

(Docket no. 6 at 5:24–25 (emphasis added).) In a separate section of their reply 

brief (following the discussion of discretionary abstention), Defendants offered to 

stipulate to the stay’s being lifted, but only “if Debtor also agrees the case can 

proceed as suggested by moving parties.” (Docket no. 9 at 5:16–21.) Apparently 

Defendants have a bargain in mind which the brief does not disclose. They do not 

show why the proffered stipulation would be effective at persuading either the 

bankruptcy court to grant relief from the automatic stay or the state court to lift the 

stay as to all claims. And it appears likely creditors would object, particularly if the 

conditions Defendants wish to impose include permitting the counterclaim against 

Enalasys to go forward.

Enalasys also argues that abstention under § 1334(c)(2) does not apply 

because the removed claims are core proceedings, over which the Court has 

 

2 Neither party provided the state court docket, which is not readily available to the 

Court. But allowing only those claims not automatically stayed to go forward is 

likely to be awkward, and in the interests of efficiency and fairness it is likely a court 

would decline to try the case piecemeal.

Case 3:19-cv-01153-LAB-JLB Document 15 Filed 03/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 10
5

19cv1153-LAB (JLB)

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

original jurisdiction. The Court agrees the claims are predominantly core claims

under 11 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(E) and (O), because the action attempts to compel 

Taylor to turn over nearly $6 million in Enalasys’ (and thus the estate’s) assets it 

alleges he is wrongfully withholding. See In re Nat’l Equipment & Mold Corp., 64 

B.R. 239 (N.D. Oh., 1986) (holding that state law action for conversion to recover 

assets wrongly taken from the debtor shortly before filing Chapter 11 should be 

treated as core). See also In re Kincaid, 917 F.2d 1162, 1165 (9th Cir. 1990) 

(distinguishing between claims seeking to obtain property of the debtor from claims 

seeking to obtain property owed to the debtor). The action also sought injunctive 

relief intended to prevent the dissipation of Enalasys’ assets, and a preliminary 

injunction granting such relief was already granted. Enalasys has consented to 

entry of final judgment by the bankruptcy judge for any claims found to be noncore.

Because all five elements are not established, mandatory abstention does 

not apply here.

Discretionary Abstention

A seven-factor test has been established for discretionary abstention: 

(a) the effect of the action on the administration of the bankruptcy 

estate; (b) the extent to which issues of state law predominate; (c) the 

difficulty of applicable state law; (d) comity; (e) the relatedness or 

remoteness of the action to the bankruptcy case; (f) the existence of a 

right to a jury trial; and (g) prejudice to the party involuntarily removed 

from state court. 

Bally, 384 B.R. at 572 (citing Williams v. Shell Oil, 169 B.R. 684, 690–93 (S.D. Cal. 

1994).) 

The opening brief does not mention this test or discuss most of these factors, 

instead focusing on the inconvenience of litigating in Santa Ana, which pertains to 

factor (g). Most of Defendants’ argument is focused on venue which the reply brief 

concedes is not at issue. The test is mentioned and the remaining factors are 

Case 3:19-cv-01153-LAB-JLB Document 15 Filed 03/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 10
6

19cv1153-LAB (JLB)

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

discussed for the first time in the reply brief. See Sundby v. Marquee Funding 

Group, Inc., 2020 WL 434487, slip op. at *7 (S.D. Cal., Jan. 28, 2020). Enalasys 

had no reason to discuss these factors, and did not do so. But even if they had 

been adequately raised in the opening brief, however, the result would be the 

same.

The first factor generally weighs against abstention, because the action is 

intended both to protect the state’s assets, and to recover lost assets which can 

be added to the estate. Moreover, the cause of action itself belongs to the estate.

See In re White, 186 B.R. 700, 703 (BAP 9th Cir. 1995). Defendants’ reply brief 

treat the first factor as the effect of the transfer on the case. The second factor, 

predominance of state law, is mixed. The claims are based on state law, which 

weighs in favor of abstention. Yet the majority are core claims, because they seek 

an order requiring the turnover of estate property. The third factor, difficulty of 

applicable state law, is neutral. The fourth factory, comity, arguably weighs against 

transfer. See Bally, 384 B.R. at 573. That being said, the state court has apparently 

stayed the action, while waiting for the bankruptcy court to act. The fifth factor 

favors transfer, because the case seeks to recover Enalasys’ substantial corporate 

assets. Factor six, the right to a jury trial, is mixed. With regard to “turnover” claims 

and other claims for injunctive relief, Defendants have no right to a jury trial. 

Enalasys has consented to allow the bankruptcy judge to enter final judgment as 

to any non-core claims. Defendants likely will not consent, although their brief does 

not explicitly say so. Rather, they merely argue that the state court is “better 

equipped to handle a jury trial than the bankruptcy court . . . .” (Docket no. 9 at 

5:1–3.)

Defendants focus on the seventh factor, prejudice to them. This focuses 

entirely on the inconvenience and increased expense of litigating in Santa Ana. 

The briefing points out that most of the Defendants, Defendants’ counsel, and 

many of the likely witnesses reside in Imperial County. They argue that Enalasys 

Case 3:19-cv-01153-LAB-JLB Document 15 Filed 03/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 10
7

19cv1153-LAB (JLB)

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

has its offices in El Centro although that does not appear to be the case. Trying 

the case in the Central District may present some challenges, if witnesses must be 

subpoenaed for trial or hearings. 

Defendants have also raised other arguments in declarations attached to the 

motion. While the Court ordinarily expects arguments to be raised in the body of 

the motion, it will consider these for purposes of making an informed and equitable 

ruling. These declarations (Docket no. 6, Exh. B–D) argue that Enalasys’ creditors 

are mostly located in Imperial County. This does not advance their argument, 

because creditors are not parties to the removed claims. And to the extent any 

creditors want to appear in the bankruptcy action, they would have to go to Santa 

Ana regardless of how the Court rules on this motion. Other cross-plaintiffs in the 

state court action do not need to go to Santa Ana or hire counsel there, because 

their claims were not removed. Furthermore, there is little reason to think that most 

creditors would seek involvement in this case. 

The declarations also show that litigating in Santa Ana will be less convenient 

for counsel, and probably more expensive. Hiring or associating local counsel 

could solve this problem, and there is no reason to think it would be difficult to do 

this in Orange County. It would likely be more expensive, and Defendants’ choice 

of counsel may be affected. One Defendant, Joseph Werner, says he cannot 

afford to hire counsel in Orange County or to defend himself there, although it is 

not clear what he bases this on. Taylor’s declaration says he has run out of cash 

and cannot hire counsel in Santa Ana, though he does not know whether he can 

raise more money. The only reason this would weigh in favor of abstention is if he 

raises enough money to pay counsel and litigate in El Centro, but not enough to 

litigate in Santa Ana, and whether that will happen (or has happened) is unknown. 

It may be that he will raise enough money to pay for counsel in either Santa Ana 

or El Centro, or that he cannot pay for counsel either place.

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-01153-LAB-JLB Document 15 Filed 03/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 10
8

19cv1153-LAB (JLB)

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

Defendants also argue that Enalasys is engaging in forum shopping, and 

removed the case to avoid dismissal. Two earlier complaints were dismissed 

following demurrers, but it is unknown whether the third would have been. The fact 

that federal pleading standards are stricter somewhat weakens this argument. And 

the fact that Enalasys obtained both a temporary restraining order and a 

preliminary injunction weakens it even more.

Even if the issue had been properly raised, and Enalasys had been afforded 

a fair opportunity to oppose it, the Court having weighed all the factors would deny 

discretionary abstention.

Motion to Transfer

Following removal, the party removing the case may file a motion to change 

venue, which may be granted either for the convenience of the parties or in the 

interest of justice. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1412, 1452. See Hightman v. FCA US LLC, 2009 

WL 3780272, slip op. at *3 (S.D. Cal., Aug. 12, 2019) (holding that the two bases 

for transfer under § 1412 are disjunctive, and either one warrants transfer). 

Enalasys relies on the interest of justice rather than convenience of the parties. 

With exceptions not applicable here, the general policy of the bankruptcy code is 

that all proceedings in the bankruptcy case be conducted in the district where the 

petition was filed. In re Burley, 738 F.2d 981, 988 (9th Cir. 1984). See also ReidAshman Mfg., Inc. v. Swanson Semiconductor Serv., L.L.C., 2008 WL 425638, at 

*1 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 14, 2008) (holding that transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1412, unlike 

transfer under § 1404, carries a presumption in favor of the court where the 

bankruptcy case is pending). 

In addition to this presumption, factors the Court may consider in determining

whether the interest of justice warrants transfer include the economics of estate 

administration, judicial economy, whether the parties would receive a fair trial, 

whether the judgment would be enforceable, whether either forum has an interest 

in having the controversy resolved within its borders, and the plaintiff’s original 

Case 3:19-cv-01153-LAB-JLB Document 15 Filed 03/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 10
9

19cv1153-LAB (JLB)

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

choice of forum. Hightman, 2019 WL 3780272 at *4; Reid-Ashman, 2008 WL 

425638 at *2. The Court also considers the convenience of the parties. Id. (citing 

In re Bruno, 227 B.R. 311, 325 (S.D. Ala., 1998)). The Court is also mindful of the 

need to secure the speedy resolution of cases. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.

Most of the arguments in favor of or against transfer are subsumed within 

addressed in the abstention analysis, supra. Neither party has suggested that the 

case belongs anywhere other than in El Centro or Santa Ana. 

Adding to the earlier analysis, the fact that the transfer would move 

proceedings within Southern California is important. The fact that the transfer 

would be between two courts in the same state ameliorates many of the concerns. 

State borders play no role here, and federal judges in Santa Ana regularly and ably

interpret and apply California law. There is no concern that the bankruptcy court 

will not competently and fairly adjudicate the claims. 

Travel between the two venues is feasible, though daily commuting over a 

long period of time is impractical. Santa Ana and El Centro are less than 200 miles 

apart, and driving between them can take from 3 to 31⁄2 hours, if conditions are 

reasonably good. This is not ideal for Defendants and witnesses, but not terribly 

onerous either. The bankruptcy court can make arrangements to minimize 

inconvenience and expense to them. It is much more convenient for Enalasys than 

El Centro would be. Enalasys represents that its headquarters are now in Orange 

County. Even setting that aside, Enalasys is already litigating in Santa Ana. The 

Court finds the convenience to the parties weighs somewhat against transfer, but 

not strongly.

The Plaintiff’s choice of forum does not carry any great weight here, in part 

because the Plaintiff itself is seeking transfer. Defendants likely had no choice 

about where to file their cross-complaint. But even characterizing their filing it in El 

Centro as a forum choice does not change the analysis, because the crosscomplaint was not removed and will not be transferred.

Case 3:19-cv-01153-LAB-JLB Document 15 Filed 03/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 10
10

19cv1153-LAB (JLB)

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

Administration of the estate, and judicial economy are important factors here, 

and both weigh in favor of transfer. Enalasys’ claims seek the turnover of assets 

that are both important for its own continued operation and would become part of 

the estate. The state court apparently is not prepared to adjudicate the case until 

bankruptcy proceedings end. And waiting until the bankruptcy proceeding ends to 

adjudicate those claims makes little sense. To the extent the claims are core 

claims, federal policy favors transferring them to the court where the bankruptcy is 

pending. See In re Burley, 738 F.2d at 988. 

Having considered and weighed these factors, the Court concludes that 

transfer would serve the interest of justice.

Conclusion and Order

Having considered the arguments, and having weighed the relevant factors, 

the Court DENIES the motion for abstention or remand, and GRANTS the motion 

to transfer.

This action is ORDERED transferred to the United States Bankruptcy Court 

for the Central District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2020

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-01153-LAB-JLB Document 15 Filed 03/13/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 10