FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 30, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 72 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNos . 1: 10 -cv -2 05 09 -KMM ,

08 -0 12 66 -RAM
ALDERW OODS GROUP, INC., OSIRIS HOLDING O F FLORIDA, INC., NORTHSTAR GRACELAND, L LC, Pl ai nt iff s - Ap pe ll an ts ,

ve rs us REYVIS GARCIA, RAMONA JOHNSON, MERC EDES W OODBURY, Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 30 , 20 12 )Befo re TJ OFLAT andMARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andDAW SON, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * TJOFLAT, Cir cu itJu dg e: The th res ho ldis su e th is ap pe al pre se nt s i s wh ethe r a b an krup tc y co urt i n
on e fed eral di st ric t h as juri sd ic ti on to de te rm in e whe th er a d eb t was di sc ha rg edin a b an kr up tc y cas e li ti ga te d i n a no th er fed eral di st ric t. We ho ldth atth e co urt l ack s juri sd ic ti on an d t he refo re d o n otreac h t he ot he r is su es th e ap pe al pre se nt s. I. A. The de btat i ss ue co ns is ts of c la im s o f to rt l iabi li ty pos se ss edby relat iv es of pe op le bu rie d i n aMi am i, Fl or id a cem et ery, kn own as Gra cel an d. Th e cl ai m s ar e
se t o utin th e cl as s ac ti on co m pl ai ntfil edin th e Ci rcu itCo urt fo r Mi am i-Da de Co un ty, Fl or id a (“ St at e Co urt” ) by Reyvi s Gar ci a, Ram on a Jo hn so n, an d M erce de s W oo db erry (“ Cred it or s” ) inMarc h 2 00 8. The d efen da nt s ar e Ald erwo od s Gro up , 1 In c., Osi ris Hol di ng of F lo rid a, In c., an d No rth st ar Grac el an d, LLC (“ Deb to rs ”),

Honora ble Robert T. Da

wson, United States District Judg e for the Western District of * Arka nsas, sitting by

designation. The c lass action complaint wa s Creditors’ four th amended c omplaint. Creditors filed 1 their first complaint in Dec ember 2004. The a lleg ations of that complaint and of the sec ond and third amende d complaints are not pertinent her e. 2Grace la nd ’s own ers . Cred it or s al le ge th atDebt or s ar e li ab le to th em an d t he 2
m em be rs of t he ir c la ss forda m ag es be cau se , du e to in ad equa te reco rdke ep in g, Deb to rs are unabl e to lo cat e upo n re qu es t t he gra ve si te s o f fam il y m em be rs or cl os e rel at iv es bu rie d i n Gra cel an d. Th is li ab il it y is ba se d o n t he co m

m on law th eo rie s o f to rti ou s i nt erfe ren ce wi th de adbo di es , in te nt io na l o r rec kl es s i nf li ct io n of em ot io na l d is tre ss , andgro ss ne gl ig en ce u nd er Fl or id a to rt l aw. Deb to rs co nt en d tha t Cr ed it or s’ cla im s wer e d is ch arg edin a Ch ap te r 11 ba nkrupt cy

cas e in th e Uni te d S ta te s B an krup tc y Co urt fo r th e Dis tri ctof Dela ware (“ Dela ware Ba nkrupt cy Co urt” ), a cas e th ey

in it ia te d o n J un e 1 , 19 99 , whe n the y

pe ti ti on edth atco urt fo r Ch ap te r 11 rel ie f (“ Ch ap te r 11 Cas e”) u nd er th e Ban krup tc y

Co de
. On Oct ob er 2 1, 1 99 9, t he Dela ware Ba nkrupt cy Co urt 3
en te redanord er es tabl is hi ng ba r da te s fo r fi li ng pro of s o f cl ai m an d app ro vi ng th e
no ti ce o f th e b an krup tc y

pro ceed in gs to be m ai le d t o a ll kn own cred it or s an d

Alderw oods Group, Inc. (“ Alderw oods”) wa s previously known as L oewe n Group 2 International, Inc. It and 816 Alder woods subsidiaries—includingOsiris Holding of Florida , Inc. (“O siris”)—oper ated c emeteries or other funer ary fac iliti es in dozens of states and w erethe debtors in the Chapter

11 bankruptc y

case s ref err ed to infra . These c ases we re c onsolidated and jointly administered unde r ca se number 99- 01244 (PJ W) in the Bankr uptcy Court for the District of De lawar e. As indicated infra , we r efe r to all of the c ases a s the “Chapter 11 Case.” Osiris purcha sed Gra cela

nd in 1991. Four year s later, Alde rwoods ac quired Osiris. On Dec ember

19, 2006, Northstar Grac eland, L L C (“Nor thstar”) acquir ed Gr ace land from Osiris. Northstar is included in the te rm Debtors e ven though it was not a debtor in a ny of the consolidated Chapter

11 case s ref

err ed to in note 2, supra. See 11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. 3 3publ is he d fo r th e b en efi t o f al l u nkno wn cr ed it or s (t he “ Bar Dat e Ord er”)
. Later 4 th atOcto be r an d i n No ve m be r 19 99 , Debt or s p ub li sh edth e n ot ic e in th e Wall StreetJo urna l, the New YorkTim es , andUSA Tod ay . On Dec em

be r 5, 2 00 1, t he Dela ware Ba nkrupt cy Co urt en te redanOrde r
co nf irming Debt or s’ pl anof r eo rg an iz at io n (“ Co nf irmatio n Ord er”) an d fi xi ng Ja nu ary 2, 2 00 2, as th e p la n’s “ Effect iv e Dat e.” The Co nf irmatio n Ord er di sc ha rg edall cla im s ag ai ns t Deb to rs , in cl ud in g u nkno wn cl ai m s s uc h a s t ho se Cred it or s as se rte d i n the Sta te Co urt ca se , th ataro se on or b efo re the Effect iv e Date an d p ro vi de d tha t t he co urt re ta in edjuri sd ic ti on ov er the reo rg an iz at io n a fte r th e Effec ti ve Date
. B. On Ap ril 7, 2 00 8, Deb to rs fil eda “ co m pl ai nt ” ag ai ns t Cr ed it or s i n t he Uni te d S ta te s B an krup tc y Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a (“ Fl or id a Ban kr up tc y Co urt” ). The co m

pl ai ntin vo ke d t ha t co urt’s jur is di ct io n u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. §§ 15 7 and13 34 an d s ou gh t (1 ) a d ecl arat io n th atth e cl ai m s C red it or s 5 6
The B ar D ate Or der provided that any cre ditor that did not file a proof of claim bef

ore 4 the bar date c ould no longe r asse rt its claim ag ainst Alderwoods or its subsi diaries. Section 157 states, in pertinent pa rt: 5 Eac h district court may

provide that a

ny or all ca ses under

title 11 and any

or all proce eding s arisingunder title 11 or a rising in or

related to a ca se under

title 11 shall be re fer

red to the ba

nkruptcy judge s for the district. B ankruptc y judge s may 4were at te m

pt in g t o l it ig at e inSta te Co urt wer e d is ch arg edin th e Ch ap te r 11 Cas e,
as of J an ua ry

2, 2 00 2, p ur su an t t o § 11 41 of the Ban krup tc y Co de , an d (2 ) an

7
or de r, en te redpu rs uantto § 5 24 of t he Ban krup tc y Co de , en

joi ni ng Cred it or s 8 fro m pu rs ui ng th ei r cas e in Sta te Co urt. 9
hear and dete rmine all ca ses under title 11 and all core proce eding s arisingunder title 11, or arisingin a ca se under title 11 . . . . 28 U.S.C. § 157(a)–(b) (1). Section 1334 states, in pertinent pa rt: “[T] he district cour

ts shall have orig inal but not exclusive jurisdiction of all civil procee dings a rising unde r title 11, or ar ising in or r elated to case s under title 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b). The c omplaint invoked the Dec laratory J udg ment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, which 6 provides that “[i]n a case of actua l controver sy

within its jurisdiction, . . . any court of the United States, upon the filing of

an appr opriate ple ading , may decla re the rights and other leg al re lations of any interested pa

rty seeking such dec laration.” Section 1141 states, in pertinent pa rt: “Except as otherw ise provided in this subsection, 7 in the plan, or in the orde r conf irming the plan, the conf

irmation of a plan disc harg es the de btor from any debt that ar ose bef

ore the date of

such conf

irmation . . . .” 11. U.S.C. § 1141(d)(1) (A). Section 524 states, in pertinent pa rt: 8 A dischar g e in a c ase unde r this titl e voids any judgme nt at any

time obtained, to the extent that such judgme nt is a determination of the persona l liabilit y of the debtor with re spect to any debt discharg ed . . . .

. . . . After notice and he aring , a cour t that enters a

n order confirminga plan of reor g anization under cha

pter 11 may

issue, in connec tion with such order, a n injunction in accor dance with this subs ection to supplement the injunctive e ffe ct of a discha

rg e under this section. 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2) , (g )(1) (A). Compl. for Dec laratory

Relief at 5–6, Alde rwoods Gr p. v. Gar cia, No. 08- 1266-B KC- 9 RAM-A (B ankr. S.D. F la. Apr. 7, 2008) . In addition to damag es and injunctive r elief, the 5Inres po ns e, Cred it or s m ov edth e Fl or id a Ban krup tc y Co urt t o d is m is s t he Deb to rs ’ co m

pl ai ntfor lac k o f subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on or, i n t he alt ern at iv e, to ab st ai n fr om

ex erci si ng juri sd ic ti on an d/ orto rem an d the cas e to st at e co urt. The 1 0 Fl or id a Ban krup tc y

Co urt h eardCred it or s’ m ot io n a ndde ni edit , con cl ud in g t ha t i t ha d s ub ject m at te r juri sd ic ti on ov er the di sp ut e an d t ha t n ei th er ab st en ti onno r
rem an d was requi redor app ro pr ia te . On J un e 9 , 20 08 , Cred it or s an swe redDebt or s’ com pl ai nt . Cred it or s al le ge d th atth e th e n ot ic e to un kn own cred it or s p ub li sh edin th e Ch ap te r 11 Cas e p ur su an t to th e BarDate Orde r was co ns ti tu ti on al ly ina de qu at e; th eref or e, th ei r cl ai m s h ad
no t b een di sc ha rg ed
. Afte r th e p le ad in gs clo se d, t he pa rti es fil edcro ss -m ot io ns forsu m m ary jud gm en t. Addres si ng Cred it or s’ ass ert io n c on cern in g t he no ti ce t o u nkno wn

1 1
complaint soug ht “such other and fur ther re lief as the Court de ems just and proper .” I d. at 6. The g ist of the Creditors’ motion was that the F lorida B ankruptc y Court could not 1 0 exercise jurisdiction over what wa s eff

ectively an af firmative de fense of discharg e masque rading as a r equest for

decla ratory relief —in essence , that Debtors we re a ssertingno fede rally cre ated right. Debtors, in turn, ar gued that the Chapte r 11 Case discha rg e injunction was a

matter of fede ral ba nkruptcy law and that, in determiningwhether Creditors’ State Court ac tion was barr ed by that discharg e, the F lorida B ankruptc y Court was prope rly

exercisingfede ral jurisdiction. At the hea

ringheld on the motions for summary judgme nt, Creditors’ counse l 1 1 appar ently

conce ded that the State Court cla ims were subje ct to discharg e provide d that adequate notice of the Chapter 11 Case had bee n provided. Presuma bly beca use of this conc ession, the Florida Ba nkruptcy Court frame d the issues befor e it as whe ther Cre ditors’ reque sted injunctive relief was a claim subject to discharg e and whether the notice published in the Chapter 11 Case provided a dequate notice as to a ll of Creditors’ cla ims. 6cred it or s, the Flo rid a Ban kr up tc y Co urt ru le d tha t t he publ ic at io n o f th e n ot ic e was in ad equa te . The p ub li cat io n fa il edto m eetth e st an da rdsetby the Fif th Am en dm en t’s Du e Pro ces s C laus e, as ex pl ic at edby Mul la ne v. Ce nt ral Hano ve r Ban k & Trus t Co ., 33 9 U.S. 3 06 , 70 S. Ct. 6 52 , 94 L. Ed. 86 5 (1 95 0) , bec au se it
was no t “ reas on ab ly calcu la te d, u nd er al l t he cir cu m st an ces , to ap pr is e in te res te d pa rti es of t he pe nd en cy

of t he act io n.” Ald erwo od s Grp . v. Garc ia , No. 08 -1 26 6- BKC-RAM-A, s li p o p. at16 (Ban kr . S.D. Fla. No v. 2 5, 2 00 9) (qu ot in g Mu ll an e, 33 9 U.S. at31 4, 7 0 S . Ct. at65 7) (em ph as is om it te d) (in te rn al qu ot at io n
m ark s o m it te d) . In t he co urt’s v ie w, th e p ub li cat io n fa il edto m eetth is st an da rd be cau se th e n ot ic e d idno t co nt ai n t he na m e o f th e Grace la ndcem et ery an d i ts op erat orat t he ti m e th e Ch ap te r 11 Cas e was pe nd in g; m or eo ve r, th e n ot ic e was
no t p ub li sh edin Mi am i’s l oc al ne wsp ap er. The Fl or id a Ban krup tc y Co urt 1 2 th eref or e d en ie d Deb to rs ’ m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t an d g ran te d C red it or s’
m ot io n, d ecl ari ng th atth e cl ai m s C red it or s wer e p ro se cu ti ng in Sta te Co urt h ad
no t b een di sc ha rg edin th e Ch ap te r 11 Cas e.

The B ankruptc y

Court rea soned that bec ause “ prior to the Eff ective D ate of

their plan 1 2 of re org anization, [ Debtors] knew e nough about re cord- keepingproblems and lost burials, or at the ver y least, the diff

iculties it was experiencinglocatingg rave -sites at Gra cela nd,” Debtors could “r easona

bly expect future pr oblems and future claims from fa mily members like [C reditors] here .” Alder

woods Grp. v. Ga

rcia , No. 08-1266-B KC-RAM-A, slip op. at 27–28 (B ankr. S.D. F la. Nov. 25, 2009). TheFlorida Ba nkruptcy Court found the notice ina dequate in that Creditors could not have known from r eadingthe notice that it re fer red to Gr ace land. 7C.

Deb to rs ap pe al edth e co urt’s d eci si on to th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a, pre se nt in g fo urarg um en ts forrev ers al : (1 ) One 1 3 of th e Cre di to rs was ano nr es id en t al ie n a t t he ti m e th e Ch ap te r 11 Cas e was be in g he ardan d the refo re h adno rig htto du e p ro ces s; (2) th e p ub li sh edno ti ce
co m po rte d wi th du e p ro ces s; (3) ev enif t he no ti ce d idno t m eetMu ll an e’s du e pr oc es s s ta nd ard , Cred it or s s uf fere d n o p reju di ce; an d (4 ) th e St at e Co urt cl ai m s sh ou ldbe co ns id ereddi sc ha rg edbe cau se th e n ot ic e co nt ai ne d Deb to rs ’ na m es . The Dis tri ctCo urt re

jecte d a ll fou r arg um en ts an d a ffi rm ed . The Di st ric t Co urt th erea fte r de ni edDebt or s’ m ot io n t o a lt er o r am en d ju dg m en t. See Fe d. R. C iv
. 1 4 P. 59 (e). Deb to rs no w app eal th e Dis tri ctCo urt’s jud gm en t an d t he ord er d en y in g Ru le 59 (e) re li ef. 1 5

The District Court had a ppellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) : “The 1 3 district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to hear appea ls . . . from final judgme nts, orders, a

nd decr ees . . . e ntere d in case s and proc eeding s ref err ed to the bankr

uptcy judge s . . . .” In its Rul e 59(e ) motion, Debtors ar gued that the nonr esident alien Cre ditor—who 1 4 lived in Cuba at the time of the Chapte r 11 Case—did not enjoy the right of due proc ess and thus was not entitled to ade quate notice of the ba nkruptcy proce eding
. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1) , which g ives the cour ts of 1 5 appea ls appellate jurisdiction over “fina l decisions, judgme nts, orders, a nd decr ees e ntere d” by the district courts in exercise of their appe llate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) . “The plain meaningof this provision gr ants this court jurisdiction of appea ls only wher e the district cour

t exercised a

ppellate jurisdiction from a decision by

a bankr uptcy judge , not where the district court e x erc ised orig inal jurisdiction.” J ove Eng ’g , Inc. v. I .R.S., 92 F.3d 1539, 1547 (11th Cir. 8Init s b rie f to th is co urt, Deb to rs rai se fou r is su es : (1 ) whe th er the Flo rid a

Ban kr up tc y Co urt h adsubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti onto co ns id er Cr ed it or s’ du e pr oc es s d efen se ; (2 ) whe th er the Dis tri ctCo urt erredin de nyin g Deb to rs ’ m ot io n to alt er o r am en d ju dg m en t; (3) whet he r th e Fl or id a Ban krup tc y Co urt erredin gr an ti ng Cred it or s s umm ary jud gm en t; an d (4 ) whe th er the Flo rid a Ban krup tc y Co urt erredin de nyin g Deb to rs ’ m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. We do no t ad dr es s t he se is su es be cau se we co nc lu de th atth e Fl or id a Ban krup tc y Co urt la ck edjuri sd ic ti on to en te rta in Debt or s’ com pl ai ntforde cl arat ory

rel ie f. II. A. The Ban krup tc y

Co de pro vi de s t ha t “ th e co nf irmatio n o f a pl an. . . di sc ha rg es th e d eb to r fro m an y de btth ataro se be fo re the da te of s uc h
co nf irmatio n” an d t ha t “ aft er co nf irmatio n o f a p la n, t he pro pe rty deal t wi th by the pl anis free an d c le ar o f al l cl ai m s an d i nt eres ts of c red it or s.” 1 1 U.S.C. § 11 41 (c), (d )(1 )(A). Mo reo ve r, th e d is ch arg e “ op erat es as an i nju nc ti on ag ai ns t t he
co m m en cem en t o r co nt in ua ti onof a n a ct io n, t he em pl oym en t o f pr oc es s, o r anact ,
1996). Of c ourse, “ [a] court of a ppeals’ jur isdiction over a district cour t’s revie w of a

bankruptc y court orde r ca

n only be base d on a prope r exercise of the district cour t’s jurisdiction.” In re Vlasek, 325 F .3d 955, 960 (7th Cir. 2003). We never theless also havejurisdiction over this appea l pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 9to co ll ect , reco ve r oroff se t an y su ch de btas ape rs on al li ab il it y of t he de bt or .” Id
. § 5 24 (a)( 2) . “ [The ] co urt t ha t en te rs anord er co nf irming a pl anof r eo rg an iz at io n
un de r ch ap te r 11 m ay

is su e, in co nn ect io n wi th su ch ord er, an in jun ct io n i n
acco rd an ce wi th th is subs ect io n t o s up pl em en t t he in jun ct iv e eff

ectof adi sc ha rg e
un de r [§ 52 4].” Id. § 52 4( g) (1 )(A). In de ed , th e Co nf irmatio n Ord er s o p ro vi de d:

“ as of the Effect iv e Dat e, al l en ti ti es th at. . . ho lda Cl ai m or o th er d eb t o r li ab il it y th atis di sc ha rg ed
. . . are p erm an en tl y en joi ne d fr om

. . . co m m en ci ng or
co nt in ui ng in an y

m an ne r an y

act io n . . . ag ai ns t t he Debt or s.” Inre Loe wenGrp. In t’l, J oi nt ly A dm in is te redCas e No. 9 9- 12 44 (PJ W ), sl ip op . at 6 0– 61 (Ban kr . D. Del. Dec . 5, 2 00 1) (Co nf irmatio n Ord er). Onc e Deb to rs were s erv edwith C red it or s’ com pl ai ntinth e St at e Co urt ca se , th ey ha d fo urop ti on s t o c ha ll en ge Cred it or s’ pro se cu ti on of t ha t ca se . Debt or s
co ul d (1 ) as se rt t he di sc ha rg e p ro vi de d b y th e Co nf irmatio n Ord er as an affi rm at iv e d efen se inth e St at e Co urt ca se ; (2 ) rem ov e th e cas e to th e Uni te d St at es Dis tri ctCo urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a und er 2 8 U.S.C. § 14 52 (a); (3) m ov e th e Del aware Ban krup tc y Co urt t o re op enth e Ch ap te r 11 Cas e pu rs ua ntto 11 U.S.C. § 3 50 (b ); or ( 4) in it ia te a pr oc eed in g i n t he Delaware 1 6

Section 350(b) state s, in pertinent par t, that “[a] case may

be re opened . . . to a ccor d 1 6 relief to the debtor, or f

or other c ause.” 11 U.S.C. § 350(b).

10Ban kr

up tc y Co urt fo r th e en fo rcem en t o f th e st atut ory in jun ct io n p ro vi de d b y

11 U.S.C. § 5 24 (a)( 2) , as re fle ct edin th e Co nf irmatio n Ord er. Inre Kewan ee Bo il er Co rp ., 27 0 B .R. 91 2, 9 18 (Ban kr . N.D. Ill . 20 02 ) (ci ti ng Stu ck er v . Card in al Bld g. Mat eri al s, In c. (In re Stuc ke r), 1 53 B.R. 2 19 , 22 2 (B an kr . N.D. Ill . 19 93 )); see als o Inre J am es , 18 4 B .R. 14 7, 1 50 –5 1 (B an kr . N.D. Ala. 1 99 5) (li st in g t he fou r op ti on s d is cu ss edab ov e). Deb to rs esc he wedth e fi rs t thr ee o pt io ns an d c ho se th e 1 7
Debtors r ejec ted option (1) by not pleadingthe dischar g e as a n aff irmative def

ense in 1 7 the State Court case
. As for option (2) , 28 U.S.C. § 1452 gives the district c ourts remova l jurisdiction for “cla ims related to bankr

uptcy case s”: A par ty may remove any

claim or c ause of

action in a c ivil action other than a proce edingbefor e the United States Tax Court or a c ivil action by a g overnme ntal unit to enforce such g overnme ntal unit’s police or re gulatory power , to the district court for the district wher e such c ivil action is pending, if suc h district court has jurisdiction of such claim or c ause of action under

section 1334 of this title. 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a). Removal of case s under § 1452( a) is possible only within “30 day s after rec eipt, through service or otherw ise, of a c opy of the initial pleadingsetting f orth the cla im or cause of ac tion sought to be re moved.” F ed. R. Ba nkr. P. 9027(a) (3)( A); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) ( “The notice of r emoval of a civil action or proc eedingshall be filed within thirty day s afte r the re ceipt by

the def endant, through service or otherw ise, of a c opy of the initial pleading setting f orth the cla im for re lief upon which suc h action or pr ocee ding is ba sed.”) . Section 1334 ref ers to 28 U.S.C. § 1334, “B ankruptc y Cases and Proc eeding s,” which g ives “the district courts . . . orig inal and exclusive jurisdiction of all case s under [the Ba nkruptcy Code], ” id. § 1334(a) , and for

“orig inal but not ex clusive jurisdiction of all civil proce eding s arisingunder [t he B ankruptc y

Code], or arisingin or related to case s under [the Ba nkruptcy Code],” id. § 1334(b). Debtors did not choose option (2) by timely removingthe State Court case—in whole or in part—to fede ral c ourt. Debtors did not file their complaint for de clar atory relief in the Florida Ba nkruptcy Court until April 2008, nearly four year s after

Creditors filed the State Court a ction, in Dece mber 2004. Thus, e ven if the F lorida B ankruptc y Court had treated the complaint as a de fac to removal unde r 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a), that removal would ha ve bee n untimely . And the g ener al re moval statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, would not have applied; the State Court ca se, consisting only

of state- law cla ims, was not one “of which the district cour

ts of the United States 11fo urth , exc ep t t ha t the y in it ia te d t he pro ceed in g b y fil in g aco m

pl ai ntfor de cl arat ory

an d i nju nc ti ve rel ie f in th e Fl or id a Ban krup tc y Co urt i ns te adof pe ti ti on in g t he Delawa re Ba nkrupt cy Co urt t o e nf

or ce t he di sc ha rg e in

jun ct io n. B. Ban krup tc y

jud ge s, l ik e d is tri ctjud ge s, h av e th e p owe r to co erce
co m pl ianc e wit h i njunc ti ve ord ers . In t he ba nkrupt cy co nt ex t, “ th e cre di to r who at te m pt s t o c ol le cta di sc ha rg edde btis vi ol at in g n oton ly a sta tu te bu t al so an have origina l jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). As for option (3) , 11 U.S.C. § 350 provides for the ba nkruptcy courts’ a dminist rative power s to open and c lose bankruptc y case s: (a) After an estate is fully

administered a

nd the cour

t has discharg ed the trustee , the cour t shall close the ca se. (b) A c ase ma

y be re opened in the c ourt in which such c ase w as closed to administer assets, to ac cord r elief to the de btor, or for other c ause. 11 U.S.C. § 350. “[U] nder B ankruptc y Rule 4007(b) e ither the de btor or the c reditor c an move to reope n the ca se for

the purpose of

filing a complaint to determine discha rg eability .” In re J ames, 184 B .R. 147, 150–51 (Ba nkr. N.D. A la. 1995) (quotingIn re Me ndiola, 99 B.R. 864, 870 (B ankr. N .D. I ll. 1989) (interna l quotation marks omitted). Ba nkruptcy Rule 4007 provides that “[a] debtor or any

cre ditor may

file a c omplaint to obtain a determination of the disc harg eability of any debt.” F ed. R. Ba

nkr. P. 4007(a) . “This rule pr escribes the proc edure to be followed when a party reque sts the court to deter mine discharg eability

of a de bt pursuant to §523 of the Code,” id. note, whic h in turn lists exceptions to discharg e under , inter alia, 11 U .S.C. § 1141, see 11 U .S.C. § 523. Thus, § 350(b) provides a me chanism whe reby , afte r an e state has be en administered a ccor ding to a confirme d reor g anization plan, the debtor or a cre ditor may

reope n a bankruptc y

case to obtain a deter

mination of whether

the cr editor’s c laim is of a ty pe exempted from discha

rg e pursua

nt to 11 U.S.C . § 523. Debtors did not choose option (3) bec ause the y did not—and could not—move the Florida Ba nkruptcy Court to reopen the Chapter 11 Case . The c ase w ould have to be r eopene d, if at all, by the Dela war e B ankruptc y

Court which had a dminist ere d the ca se. See 11 U .S.C. § 350(b) ( “A c ase ma

y be re opened in the c ourt in which such c ase w as closed to a dminist er assets, to ac cord r elief to the de btor, or for other c ause.” ) 12in

jun ct io n a ndis th eref

or e in co nt em

ptof t he ba nkrupt cy

co urt t ha t i ss ue d t he
or de r of di sc ha rg e.” Co x v . Zale Del ., Inc ., 23 9 F .3d91 0, 9 15 (7t h C ir. 2 00 1) (ci ti ng Pertus o v . For d M ot or Cred itCo ., 23 3 F .3d41 7, 4 21 (6t h C ir. 2 00 0) ; In s. Co . of N. Am . v. NGC Set tl em en t Tru st& Asb es to s C la im s M gmt. Co rp . (Inre Nat’l Gy ps um Co .), 11 8 F .3d10 56 , 10 63 (5t h C ir. 1 99 7) ); a cco rdHardy v. Un it ed St at es ex rel . I.R.S. (In re Hard y ), 97 F.3d13 84 , 13 90 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ) (“ [Cre di to r]
m ay be li ab le forco nt em

pt. . . if i t wi ll fu ll y

vi ol at edth e p erm an en t i njunc ti on of § 5 24 .” (em

ph as is om it te d) ). In a dd it io n t o t he tra di ti on al san ct io ns forco erci ng
co m pl ianc e wit h a n i nju nc ti on—i nc arce rat io n o r fi na nc ia l p en al ty, se e Newm anv. Alab am a, 68 3 F .2d13 12 , 13 18 (11 th Cir . 19 82 )—aba nkrupt cy co urt m ay

is su e
or de rs to ob vi at e co nduc t t ha t s ta nd s t o frus tra te adm in is tra ti onof t he Ban krup tc y Co de , see In r e Hard y , 97 F.3dat 1 38 9 (e xp la in in g t ha t a b an krup tc y co urt m ay is su e “ an y

type o f or de r, whe th er i nju nc ti ve , com pe ns at iv e o r pu ni ti ve , as l on g a s itis ne ces sa ry

or app ro pr ia te to carry

ou t t he pro vi si on s o f th e Ban krup tc y Co de .” (quo ti ng Jo ve Eng ’g, Inc . v. I.R.S., 9 2 F .3d15 39 , 15 53 –5 4 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 6) (quo ti ng 28 U.S.C. § 1 05 )) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). A ban krup tc y 1 8
Fe dera l judge s have inhe rent powe r under Article I I Iof the United States Constitution 1 8 to hold lit iga

nts in civil contempt for violating c ourt order s, see Chambe rs v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44, 111 S. C t. 2123, 2132, 115 L . Ed. 2d 27 (1991), suc h as an injunction ef fec ted by 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2) , see, e .g ., Matthews v. United States (I n re Matthews), 184 B .R. 594, 598 (B ankr. S.D. Ala . 1995) (“ Civil contempt power is inherent in bankr

uptcy courts since all courts have a uthority to enforc e complianc e with their law ful order s. This inherent author ity extends to 13co urt t hu s h as th e ad di ti on al po wer t o e njo in li ti gant s fr om pro se cu ti ng in st at e
co urt cl ai m s ag ai ns t fo rm er d eb to rs . In Trav el ers Ind em ni ty Co. v. Ba il ey , 55 7 U.S. 13 7, 1 29 S. Ct. 2 19 5, 1 74 L. Ed. 2d99 (20 09 ), fo r in st an ce, the Supr em e Co urt ci te d “ Trav el ers [’s] inv o[ cat io n o f] the term s o f th e [d is ch arg e] [o]rder s i n
m ov in g t he Ban krup tc y

Co urt t o e njo in26 [su it s] pen di ng in st at e co urts ” an d t he Ban kr up tc y Co urt’s s ub se qu en t o rd er cl ari fy in g t ha t the su it s “ were, an d re m ai ne d, pr oh ib it edby the [di sc ha rg e] [o]rder s” as a n u nc on tro ve rs ia l ex erci se of the ba nkrupt cy

co urt’s “ juri sd ic ti on to in te rp retan d e nf or ce i ts own pri orord ers .” Id
. at14 3, 1 51 , 12 9 S . Ct. at22 00 , 22 05 ; s ee al so Co nt ’l Ill . Nat’l Ban k v . Chi cag o, 29 4 U.S. 6 48 , 67 5, 5 5 S . Ct. 5 95 , 60 6, 7 9 L. Ed. 1 11 0 (1 93 5) (“ The po wer t o i ss ue

statutory ‘orde rs’ such a s . . . the discharg e injunction.” (c iting In re G alvez, 119 B.R. 849, 849 (B ankr. M.D. F la. 1990)). Ba nkruptcy-cour

t power in this respe ct is g iven also by § 105(a) of the B ankruptc y Code: The c ourt may

issue any order , proce ss, or judg ment that is nece ssary or appropriate to ca

rry out the provisions of this ti tle. No provision of this titl e providingfor the r aisingof an issue by a par ty in interest shall be c onstrued to prec lude the cour

t from, sua sponte, takingany action or making a

ny deter mination necessa

ry or appropriate to e nforc e or implement c ourt order s or rules, or to pre vent an a

buse of pr ocess. 11 U.S.C. § 105(a); see also Har dy v. United States ex rel. I .R.S. (In re H ardy ), 97 F .3d 1384, 1389 (11th Cir. 1996) (“ Section 105 cre ates a statutory contempt power , distinct from the court’ s inhere nt contempt power s in bankruptcy proce eding s.”). “ Whil e a de fenda nt may be cited f or contempt under

the cour t’s inhere nt powers only

upon a showingof ‘ba d faith,’ [Creditor] may be liable f

or conte mpt under § 105 if it willfully violated the per

manent injunction of § 524.” In re H ardy , 97 F.3d at 1390 (quoting G latter v. Mroz (In re Mr oz), 65 F.3d 1567, 1575 (11th Cir. 1995)) ( emphasis omitted). 14anin

jun ct io n wh enne ces sa ry

to pre ve ntth e d efea t o r im pa irment o f it s juri sd ic ti on is in he ren t i n aco urt o f ba nkrupt cy , as i t i s i n adu ly establ is he d c ou rt of equi ty.”); Loc al Loan Co . v. Hu nt , 29 2 U.S. 2 34 , 24 1, 5 4 S . Ct. 6 95 , 69 7– 98 , 78 L. Ed. 12 30 (19 34 ) (“ [Itis ] th e au th or it y of t he ba nkrupt cy

co urt t o e nt ert ai n t he pr es en t p ro ceed in g, d et erm in e th e eff ectof t he ad

jud ic at io n and[di sc harg e] ord er,
an d e njo inpe ti ti on er fro m it s t hr eat en edin te rfer en ce t he rewi th .”). 1 9 The pa rty seek in g t o e nf

or ce an in jun ct io n c an no t, h owe ve r, ob ta in a
su cces si ve in

jun ct io n— i.e., anin

jun ct io n o rd eri ng co m

pl ia nc e wit h a n e xi st in g in jun ct io n. Se e, e.g ., Barri en to s v . W el ls Farg o B an k, N.A., 63 3 F .3d11 86 , 11 90 (9 th Cir . 20 11 ) (“ An i nju nc ti on ag ai ns t v io la ti ng anex is ti ng in jun ct io n wo ul d b e
supe rfl uo us , add in g n o ju di ci al act io n a ndpro vi di ng no ad di ti on al rel ie f.” (ci ti ng So lo w v. Kal ik ow (I n re Kali ko w), 60 2 F .3d82 , 93 –9 4 (2 d C ir. 2 01 0) ; 1 Dan B
. Dob bs , Law of Re m ed ie s § 2.8 (1 ), at18 6– 89 (2ded . 19 93 )). 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) e mpowers the ba nkruptcy courts to enjoin state suits. See I n re 1 9 Har dy , 97 F.3d at 1389. The Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, does provide that “ [a] court of the United States may

not gr ant an injunction to stay proce eding s in a State court e x cept a s expressly authorized by

Act of Congress, or where nece ssary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protec t or eff

ectuate its judgments.” T he cur rent ve rsion of the Anti-Injunction Act, howeve r, expanded upon the ea

rlier ve rsion; “[a]n ex ception as to Ac ts of Congr ess re lating to ba nkruptcy was omitted and the g ener al exception substitut ed to cove r all exceptions.” I d. note. Henc e, “[t] he languag e of § 105 e ncompasses a ny ty pe of or der, whether

injunctive, compensative or punitive, as longas it is necessa ry or appropriate to c arr

y out the provisions of the B ankruptc y Code,” In re H ardy , 97 F.3d at 1389 (quoting Jove Eng ’g , 92 F.3d at 1553–54 (quoting 28 U .S.C. § 105)) ( internal quotation marks omitted)) , such as whe n allowinga state- court c laimant to prosec ute his suit would frustrate a dminist ration of the ba nkruptcy estate. 15Inth is cas e, Deb to rs see k t o p rev en t Cr ed it or s fr om pu rs ui ng in Sta te Co urt cl ai m s p ur

po rte dl y di sc ha rg edinth e Ch ap te r 11 Cas e. If th e cl ai m s wer e di sc ha rg ed , Cred it or s m ay be in co nt em

ptof t he di sc ha rg e in

jun ct io n fo r
m ai nt ai ni ng th e St at e Co urt ac ti on . See Co x, 2 39 F.3dat 9 15 ; Inre Hard y , 97 F.3 d a t 1 39 0. Bu t Deb to rs , in dra fti ng th ei r co m pl ai ntforde cl arat ory

rel ie f, di d
no t fr am e th e p le ad in g a s a m ot io n fo r anord er t o s ho w cau se why Cred it or s sh ou ldno t b e h el d i n c on te m ptforvi ol at in g t he di sc ha rg e in jun ct io n. In st ead , Deb to rs m ov edth e co urt t o d ecl are t ha t Cr ed it or s’ cla im s h adbe endi sc ha rg edin th e Ch ap te r 11 Cas e p ur su an t t o § 11 41 of t he Ban krup tc y Co de , Com

pl . for Decl arat ory

Rel ie f ¶ 2 7, Al de rwo od s Grp . v. Garc ia , No. 0 8- 12 66 -BKC- RAM-A (Ban kr . S.D. Fla. Ap r. 7, 2 00 8) , andto en joi n C red it or s “ fro m

co nt in ui ng th e [St at e Co urt ac ti on ], pu rs ua ntto § 5 24 of the Ban krup tc y Co de .” Id . at 5 -6
. Deb to rs reque st edrel ie f is eit he r a m is gu id edatt em ptto ha ve th e co urt s an ct io n Cred it or s p ur

po rte d c on te m

ptof the Ch ap te r 11 Cas e’s di sc ha rg e p ro vi si on by
en joi ni ng Cred it or s fr om

pro se cu ti ng th ei r St at e Co urt ac ti on , cf. Trav el ers 2 0 We say misguided be cause Alderw oods’s complaint does not re flec t the proper 2 0 proce dure to invoke the court’s c ivil contempt power. I f the plaintiff ( the par

ty obtaining the writ) believe s that the defe ndant (the enjoined par

ty) is failingto comply

with the decr ee’ s mandate, the plaintiff moves the cour t to issue an order

to show causewhy

the def endant should not be adjudg ed in civil contempt and sa nctioned. The plaintiff’s motion cites the injunctive provision at issue and alleg es that the de fenda nt has ref used to obey

its 16In de m . Co., 5 57 U.S. at 1 48 –5 2, 1 29 S. Ct. at22 03 –0 5, o r itis anim pe rm is si bl e pu rs ui t o f a s uc ces si ve in jun ct io n, cf

. Barri en to s, 6 33 F.3dat 1 19 0. W e th in k i t u nn eces sa ry

to di st il l an y

furth er the rel ie f Deb to rs ’ co m pl ai nt
se ek s. WhatDebt or s wan t i s the en fo rcem en t o f th ei r di sc harg e in jun ct io n. If th ey m ean t t o o bt ai n i t b y

ha vi ng a ba nkrupt cy

co urt s an ct io n C red it or s’ con te m pt fo r di sr eg ard in g t he in

jun ct io n b y , for

ex am pl e, en joi ni ng Cred it or s fr om pr os ecu ti ng th e St at e Co urt ac ti on , th enth e Fl or id a Ban krup tc y Co urt was no t t he
co urt wi th th e p owe r to do so . C. The ul ti m at e que st io n i n acas e li ke th is on e is whi ch co urt h as th e p owe r to
en fo rce t he di sc harg e in

jun ct io n. To an swe r th is qu es ti on , we m us t u nd ers ta ndth e rel at io ns hi p b etween a ba nkrupt ’s est at e an d the adm in is tra ti on of t he est at e. 1.

mandate. I f satisfied that the pla intiff’s motion states a ca se of non- compliance , the cour t orders the defe ndant to show ca use why he should not be held in contempt and sc hedules a hearing f or that purpose . At the hea ring , if the plaintiff proves what he has a lleg ed in his motion for an orde r to show ca use, the c ourt hear s from the de fenda

nt. At the end of the day , the cour t determines whe ther the defe ndant has c omplied with the injunctive provision at issue and, if not, the sanction(s) ne cessa

ry to ensure c ompliance. Rey nolds v. Roberts, 207 F.3d 1288, 1298 (11th Cir. 2000) ( footnote omitted) (c itations omitted). 17As a m at te r of ba si c p ol ic y , “ [b ]ankrupt cy juri sd ic ti on , as u nd ers to odto da y
an d a t the ti m e o f th e fra m in g, i s p rin ci pa ll y in rem juri sd ic ti on .” Cen t. Va. Cmty. Co ll . v. Kat z, 54 6 U.S. 3 56 , 36 9, 1 26 S. Ct. 9 90 , 10 00 , 16 3 L. Ed. 2 d 9 45 (20 06 ).

“ [T]he juri sd ic ti on of c ou rts ad jud ic at in g ri gh ts inth e b an krup t es ta te in cl ud edth e po wer t o i ss ue co m

pu ls ory ord ers to faci li ta te th e adm in is tra ti on an d d is tri bu ti on of th e res .” Id . at 3 62 , 12 6 S . Ct. at99 6. A co urt, h owe ve r, m us t h av e p os se ss io n of th e res in ord er t o o bt ai n i n re m juri sd ic ti on ov er i ts di st rib ut io n. Fo r ex am pl e, by anal og y

to in rem adm ira lt y

cas es —an an al og y

th e Supr em e Co urt h as fou nd 2 1 ap pl ic ab le to ba nkrupt cy , see Tenn . Stu de ntAss is ta nc e Co rp . v. Ho od , 54 1 U.S. 44 0, 4 46 –4 7, 1 24 S. Ct. 1 90 5, 1 91 0, 1 58 L. Ed. 2d76 4 (2 00 4) —we h av e sa idth at

“ [o ]nly if th e co urt h as ex cl us iv e cu st od y an d c on tro l o ve r th e [re s] do es itha ve juri sd ic ti on ov er the [res ] so as t o b e ab le to ad jud ic at e ri gh ts in itth atare b in di ng ag ai ns t t he worl d,” Odysse y Mari ne Exp lo rat io n, In c. v. Un id en ti fie d S hi pwr eck ed Ves se l, 6 57 F.3d11 59 , 11 71 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (quo ti ng R.M.S. Tit an ic , Inc . v. Hav er, 1 71 F.3d94 3, 9 64 (4th C ir. 1 99 9) ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. 2 2

L ibels ag ainst salvag ed vesse ls or the proc eeds the reof are in rem proc eeding s. The 2 1 Sabine, 101 U.S. (11 Otto) 384, 386, 25 L . Ed. 982 (1880). The same is true of c ivil forfeiture proce eding s. “[I ]tlong ha s been unde rstood that a 2 2 valid seizure of the r es is a pre requisite to the initiation of an in rem c ivil forfeitureproce eding .” Republic Nat’l B ank of Miami v. United States, 506 U.S. 80, 84, 113 S. Ct. 554, 557, 121 L . Ed. 2d 474 (1992) ( emphasis omitted). 18The Ban krup tc y Co de pro vi de s t ha t “ [t]he di st ric t co urt i n wh ic h acas e
un de r ti tl e 1 1 i s co m

m en cedor i s p en di ng sh al l h av e ex cl us iv e juri sd ic ti on of a ll th e p ro pe rty, wherev er l oc at ed , of the de bt oras o f th e co m m en cem en t o f su ch
cas e, an d o f pr op erty

of the est at e.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 13 34 (e)( 1) . Becau se

“ [b ]ankrupt cy

co urts ha ve ex cl us iv e juri sd ic ti on ov er a d eb to r’s pr op erty , whe rev er l oc at ed , andov er the est at e,” i t fo ll ows th at“ th e co urt’s jur is di ct io n i s pr em is edon th e d eb to r an d h is est at e.” Hoo d, 5 41 U.S. at 4 47 , 12 4 S . Ct. at19 10 (ci ti ng 28 U.S.C. § 1 33 4( e)). Itis th is asp ectof aba nkrupt cy co urt’s jur is di ct io n th at“pe rm it s i t t o ‘de te rm in [e] all cla im s t ha t an y on e, whe th er n am edin th e act io n
orno t, h as to th e p ro pe rty or thi ng in qu es ti on ,’ ” in th at“ ‘[t]he p ro ceed in g i s “ on e ag ai ns t t he worl d.” ’” Id. at 4 48 , 12 4 S . Ct. at19 11 (qu ot in g 1 6 J . Mo or e etal., Mo or e’s Fed eral Prac ti ce § 10 8.7 0[ 1] (3ded . 20 04 )) (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ). Acco rd in gl y , th e co urt ad m in is te rin g t he ba nkrupt ’s est at e—t he res —i s t he co urt wit h t he po wer t o e nt er o rd ers effe ct in g i ts di st rib ut io n a ndto “ ad jud ic at e ri gh ts in itth atare b in di ng ag ai ns t t he worl d.” Ody ss ey Mari ne , 65 7 F .3dat 1 17 1 (quo ti ng R.M.S. Ti ta ni c, 17 1 F .3dat 9 64 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. Log ic al ly, th en , a ba nkrupt cy co urt n eces saril y

ha s p owe r to en fo rce i ts own
or de rs reg ard in g i ts adm in is tra ti on of t he est at e. Loca l Lo anCo ., 29 2 U.S. at24 1, 54 S. Ct. at69 7– 98 . Whe n, i n aCh ap te r 11 cas e, a b an krup tc y co urt i ss ue s an 19or de r co nf

irming a reo rg an iz at io n p la n, t ha t co urt “ ret ai ns po st co nf irmatio n juri sd ic ti on to co m

pl et e an y act io n p ert in en t t o t he pl an .” 9D Am . Ju r. 2d Ban kr up tc y § 3 01 4 (2 01 2) ; s ee al so 28 U.S.C. §§ 15 7, 1 33 4 (p ro vi di ng th e ba nkrupt cy

co urts —b y

op erat io n o f refe rral un de r § 1 57 —“ or ig in al bu t n ot
ex cl us iv e juri sd ic ti on of a ll civ il pro ceed in gs ari si ng un de r ti tl e 1 1, o r ari si ng in or rel at edto cas es un de r ti tl e 1 1” ). Ind eed , “ [t]he ret en ti on of ju ris di ct io n b y th e ba nkrupt cy

co urt af te r co nf irmatio n i s p art ic ul arl y

ap pr op ria te wher e . . . the ba nkrupt cy

co urt ex pr es sl y

ret ai ns juri sd ic ti on un de r th e p la n.” LTV Co rp . v. Bac k (I n re Ch at eau ga y

Co rp .), 20 1 B .R. 48 , 66 (Ban kr . S.D.N.Y. 19 96 ) (ci ti ng Hos p. & Uni v. Pr op . Dam ag e Cl ai m an ts v. J oh ns -Ma nv il le Co rp . (Inre Jo hn s- Man vi ll e Co rp .), 7 F.3 d 3 2, 3 4 (2 d C ir. 1 99 3) ). Thes e p rin ci pl es ou gh t t o be sel f-ev id en t; itwou ldwreakha vo c o n t he fed eral co urts to lea ve en fo rcem en t of th e in jun ct iv e o rd er o f a b an krup tc y co urt i n o ne di st ric t t o t he in te rp ret iv e whi m s o f a b an krup tc y

co urt i n ano th er d is tri ct . Mo reo ve r, th e co urt tha t en te rs anin jun ct iv e o rd er re ta in s ju ris di ct io n t o
en fo rce i ts ord er. Inth is res pe ct , a ba nkrupt cy co urt i s n o d iff

eren t t ha n a ny oth er fed eral co urt, wh ic h p os se ss es th e in he ren t p owe r to san ct io n c on te m ptof i ts
or de rs . See Ch am

be rs v. NASCO, In c., 50 1 U.S. 3 2, 5 0, 1 11 S. Ct. 2 12 3, 2 13 6, 11 5 L. Ed. 2 d 2 7 (1 99 1) . The b an krup tc y co urt t ha t co nf

irms a reo rg an iz at io n 20pl anth us en te rs anin jun ct iv e o rd er—th e co nf irmatio n o rd er, s ee 1 1 U.S.C. §§ 52 4, 1 14 1—th e v io la ti on of wh ic h i t ca n s an ct io n. Th atsai d, al th ou gh a fed eral co urt’s i nju nc ti on ap pl ie s n at io nwi de , “ [v ]iol at io n o f anin jun ct iv e o rd er i s
co gn iz ab le in th e co urt wh ic h i ss ue d t he in jun ct io n.” W affe ns ch m id t v . MacKay , 76 3 F .2d71 1, 7 16 (5t h C ir. 1 98 5) (qu ot in g S ti ll er v . Hardm an , 32 4 F .2d62 6, 6 28 (2 d C ir. 1 96 3) ) (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ) (em ph as is ad de d) (qu ot at io n m ark s
om it te d) ; s ee al so Co x, 2 39 F.3dat 9 15 (“ th e cre di to r who att em pt s t o c ol le cta di sc ha rg edde btis vi ol at in g n oton ly a sta tu te bu t al so anin jun ct io n a ndis th eref or e inco nt em

ptof t he ba nkrupt cy

co urt tha t i ss ue d t he ord er o f di sc ha rg e.” (em ph as is ad de d) ). Perh ap s m os t i m

po rta nt ly, th en , th e p owe r to san ct io n c on te m ptis juri sd ic ti on al
. [T]he p owe r of

a co urt t o m ak e an ord er carri es with i t t he equa l po wer t o p un is h fo r a d is ob ed ie nc e o f th atord er, an d t he in qu iry as t o th e que st io n o f di so be di en ce h as be en , fro m ti m e imm em or ia l, the sp eci al fun ct io n o f th e [o rd eri ng ] co urt. . . . To subm itth e que st io n o f di so be di en ce t o a no th er trib un al
. . . wou ldop erat e to de pr iv e th e pr oc eed in g o f ha lf i ts effi ci en cy . . . . [T] he so le ad jud ic at io n o f co nt em pt s, an d t he pu ni sh m en ts th ereo f [b el on g] ex cl us iv el y . . . to each res pe ct iv e co urt. Inre Deb s, 1 58 U.S. 56 4, 5 94 –9 5, 1 5 S . Ct. 9 00 , 91 0, 3 9 L. Ed. 1 09 2 (1 89 5) (ci ta ti on om it te d) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) , abr og at edon ot he r gr ou nd s

21by Blo om

v. Il li no is , 39 1 U.S. 1 94 , 88 S. Ct. 1 47 7, 2 0 L. Ed. 2 d 5 22 (19 68 ); s ee al so Bak er ex rel . Tho m as v. Gen . Mo to rs Co rp ., 52 2 U.S. 2 22 , 11 8 S . Ct. 6 57 , L. Ed. 2 d 5 80 (19 98 ) (“ [The ] no nr en di ti on forum en fo rces th e m on et ary rel ie f po rti on of a jud gm en t b utlea ve s en fo rcem en t o f th e in jun ct iv e p orti on to th e ren di ti on fo ru m .” (ci ti ng Sti ll er v . Hardm an , 32 4 F .2d62 6, 6 28 (2dCir . 19 63 ))). Thu s, t he co urt t ha t i ss ue d t he in jun ct iv e o rd er al on e p os se ss es th e p owe r to
en fo rce c om

pl ia nc e wit h a ndpu ni sh co nt em ptof tha t o rd er. Inre Deb s, 1 58 U.S. at59 5, 1 5 S . Ct. at91 0; see als o Waffen sc hm id t, 7 63 F.2dat 7 16 (“ Enfo rcem en t of anin jun ct io n t hr ou gh a co nt em ptpro ceed in g m

us t o ccu r in th e is su in g juri sd ic ti on be cau se co nt em ptis anaffro ntto th e co urt i ss ui ng th e o rd er.”) ; Su nt ex Dairy v. Be rg la nd , 59 1 F .2d10 63 , 10 68 (5th C ir. 1 97 9) (“ If [co nduc t] is fou ndby th e Mi ss ou ri c ou rt t o b e in vi ol at io n o f it s i nju nc ti on , itm ay be in co nt em

ptof t ha t
co urt. The ap pr op ria te res po ns e to su ch co nt em pt , if i t ex is ts , is a m at te r fo r th e Mi ss ou ri d is tri ctco urt u nd er tha t co urt’s co nt in ui ng juri sd ic ti on to en fo rce o r pr ot ectit s i nju nc ti on ord er.”) ; Su ll iv anv. Un it edSta te s, 4 F.2d10 0, 1 01 (8t h C ir. 2 3 19 25 ) (“ [T]he co urt wh ic h i ss ue s t he in jun ct io n i s t he co urt ag ai ns t wh ic h t he

In Bonne r v. City

of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), this 2 3 court a dopted as bindingprec edent a ll decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981. 22co nt em

ptis co m m it te d a ndth e co urt wh ic h h as juri sd ic ti on to de al with i t.”)
. Oth er co urts are wi th ou t ju ris di ct io n t o d o s o. Inth e cas e atha nd , itis ap pa ren t t ha t i f Cre di to rs ’ fil in g o f th e St at e Co urt act io n i nd eedvi ol at edth e d is ch arg e in jun ct io n c on ta in edin th e Co nf irmatio n Ord er, the n i t was th e Del aware Ban krup tc y Co urt’s i nju nc ti on to en fo rce—no t t he Fl or id a Ban krup tc y

Co urt’s. The Ch ap te r 11 Cas e was adm in is te redby the Dela ware Ba nkrupt cy

Co urt; th atco urt co nf

irmed Deb to rs ’ reo rg an iz at io n p la n
an d e nt eredth e o rd er d is ch arg in g Deb to rs ’ pr eco nf irmatio n l iabi li ti es . As th e
co urt t ha t co nt ro ll edth e res of De bt or s’ est at e, th e Del aware Ban krup tc y Co urt ret ai ne d juris di ct io n t o e ffec tu at e an d e nf or ce t he di sc ha rg e in

jun ct io n. Th is is
ev enm or e ap pa ren t co ns id eri ng th atth e Co nf irmatio n Ord er ex pl ic it ly enjoi ne d
su it s t o c ol le cton di sc ha rg edde bt s an d v es te d c on ti nu in g ju ris di ct io n i n t he Dela ware Ba nkrupt cy

Co urt t o e nf

or ce v io la ti on s o f th e d is ch arg e in jun ct io n. Se e Inre Ch at eau ga y

Co rp ., 20 1 B .R. at 6 6. If C red it or s’ cla im s wer e d is ch arg ed , th en th e Del aware Ban krup tc y Co urt al on e h adth e p owe r to san ct io n C red it or s’ all eg ed
co nt em ptforpro se cu ti ng di sc ha rg edcla im s i n v io la ti on of t he in jun ct io n. Se e, e.g ., W affe ns ch m id t, 7 63 F.2dat 7 16 . Thu s, re ga rd le ss of h ow Deb to rs fram edth e al le ga ti on s o f th e co m

pl ai ntth ey

fil edin th e Fl or id a Ban krup tc y Co urt— as
se ek in g t he san ct io ni ng of C red it or s’ all eg edco nt em pt , an i nju nc ti on ag ai ns t
23fu rth er v io la ti on of t he di sc ha rg e in jun ct io n, o r anord er en

joi ni ng th e St at e Co urt
cas e fro m pro ceed in g fu rth er—th e Fl or id a Ban krup tc y Co urt l ack edjuri sd ic ti on to
en te rta inth e co m

pl ai ntbe cau se th e d is ch arg e in jun ct io n was ne ve r it s t o e nf or ce. 2. Tha t al le ge d c on te m

no rs are wi th ou t t he territ or ia l ju ris di ct io n o f th e
ren di ti on forum

is of n o m om en t. As age ne ral pri nc ip le , th e Due Pro ces s C laus e requi res th ata fed eral co urt h av e juri sd ic ti on ov er a p ers on in ord er t o b in d t ha t pe rs on th ro ug h ju dg m en t. See U.S. Con st . am en d. V; Om ni Cap it al Int ’l, Ltd. v
. Ru do lf Wol ff & Co ., Ltd., 4 84 U.S. 97 , 10 4, 1 08 S. Ct. 4 04 , 40 9, 9 8 L. Ed. 2 d 4 15 (1 98 7) (“ The requi rem en t t ha t a c ou rt h av e p ers on al juri sd ic ti on flo ws . . . fro m th e Due Pro ces s C laus e. . . . It r ep res en ts a res tri ct io n o n ju di ci al po wer n otas a
m at te r of so ve rei gn ty, bu t as a m at te r of in di vi du al li be rty.” (qu ot at io n o m it te d) (s eco ndalt erat io n i n o rig in al )). Not wit hs ta nd in g t hi s g en eral requi rem en t,
no np art ie s wh o e ng ag e inen joi ne d c on du ctcanbe san ct io ne d wh enth ei r co nduc t
wou ldfru st rat e th e co urt’s “ ab il it y to ren de r a b in di ng jud gm en t.” Un it edSta te s v . Hall , 47 2 F .2d26 1, 2 67 (11 th Cir . 19 72 ). Acco rd in gl y , th e co urts th atha ve
co ns id eredth e is su e g en eral ly agree th atth is san ct io n p owe r ex te nd s t o ape rs on
ou ts id e th e te rri to ria l l im it s o f th e co urt t ha t i ss ue d t he in jun ct iv e o rd er, p ro vi de d th atth e p ers on ha d a ctua l n ot ic e o f th e o rd er an d a ct edin co nc ertwith t he party
24ex pl ic it ly enjoi ne d. Cl earOn e Co m m un ic at io ns , Inc . v. Bo wers , 65 1 F .3d12 00 , 12 15 –1 6 (1 0t h C ir. 2 01 1) ; Se c. & Exc h. Co m m ’n v. Ho m a, 51 4 F .3d66 1, 6 73 –7 5 (7 th Cir . 20 08 ); Waffen sc hm id t, 7 63 F.2dat 7 14 . Anal og ou sl y , incas es th atare
es se nt ia ll y

inrem —an d t he refo re co nc ern th e o rd erl y an d e ffi ci en t d is tri bu ti on of
a res —t he co urt’s p owe r to en joi n a ndto san ct io n e xt en ds to th e who le worl d, t o
an y pe rs on who co m es in to co nt actwith the res . See Hal l, 4 72 F.2dat 2 65 –6 6 (“ Fed eral co urts have is su edin jun ct io ns bi nd in g o n a ll pe rs on s, re ga rd le ss of
no ti ce, wh o c om e in to co nt actwith p ro pe rty whic h i s the subjec t o f a jud ic ia l de cree .”); see als o Kl ay

v. Un it edHeal th gr oup, In c., 37 6 F .3d10 92 , 11 03 (11 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (“ Whe n p art ic ul ar p ro pe rty is b efo re the di st ric t co urt . . . su ch as wh en itis th e subjec t o f aninrem pro ceed in g o r in th e cu st od y of aba nkrupt cy

tru st ee, th e co urt m ay

ge ne ral ly enjoi n p ro ceed in gs in an y ot he r co urt re ga rd in g t ha t pr op erty .” (ci ti ng Mac on Upl an ds Ventur e v . Met ro . Life In s. Co . (Inre Ma co n Upl an ds Ventur e), 6 24 F.2d26 , 28 (5t h C ir. 1 98 0) )). 2 4
An injunction to cease prosec uting a claim that was discha

rg ed in bankr

uptcy is such 2 4 an injunction. The discha rg e grante d by

opera tion of 11 U.S.C. § 524 “embodies the ‘f resh star t' concept of the bankr

uptcy code.” In re H ardy , 97 F.3d at 1388–89. In this sense, the discharg e injunction its elf is like an All Writs Act injunction issued “in aid of” a court’s jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1651, in t hat the discha rg e injunction is “in aid of” the purpose of the B ankruptc y

Code. Simi larly , enjoining pr osecution of a discharg ed cla im would also be “in aid of” the cour t’s jurisdiction as a nec essar y means of e ffe ctuatingthe dischar g e injunction. See, e.g ., L ocal L oan Co. v. Hunt, 292 U.S. 234, 241, 54 S . Ct. 695, 697–98, 78 L . Ed. 1230 (1934) ( “[I t is] the authority of the ba nkruptcy court to ente rtain the pre sent proce eding , deter mine the ef

fec t of the adjudication and [dischar g e] order, a nd enjoin petitioner fr om its t hrea tened inter fer ence 25Inth e b an krup tc y co nt ex t, a b ar-d at e n ot ic e, publ is he d t o u nkno wn cred it or s, s uf

fic es to bri ng cred it or s wi th inth e p owe r of th e b an krup tc y

co urt ad m in is te rin g t he est at e. Thi s i s t ru e reg ard le ss of wh ethe r actua l n ot ic e is
rece iv ed —p ro vi de d t ha t the m ean s o f publ ic at io n a re tho se “ reas on ab ly calcu la te d,
un de r al l t he cir cu m st an ces , to ap pr is e in te res te d p art ie s o f th e p en de nc y of t he act io n.” Mu ll an e v . Cen tra l Han ov er Ba nk& Tru stCo ., 33 9 U.S. 3 06 , 31 4, 7 0 S
. Ct . 65 2, 6 57 , 94 L. Ed. 86 5 (1 95 0) ; s ee al so City of Ne w Yorkv. N.Y., N. H. & H. R. Co ., 34 4 U.S. 2 93 , 29 6, 7 3 S . Ct. 2 99 , 30 1, 9 7 L. Ed. 3 33 (19 53 ) (“ [W] he n t he
na m es , in te res ts an d a dd res se s o f [cre di to rs ] are u nkno wn, p la in ne ces si ty m ay
cau se a res ort t o p ub li cat io n.” ). Becaus e th e b an krup tc y co urt h as ex cl us iv e juri sd ic ti on ov er the de bt or ’s est at e, 28 U.S.C. § 1 33 4( e), the publ is he d n ot ic e gi ve s p ot en ti al cred it or s s uf fic ie nt“ co nt act ” wit h the de bt or ’s est at e su ch th atth e
co urt m ay pro pe rly enjoi n t ho se who are n otpre se ntwithi n t he co urt’s fe de ral di st ric t co ns is te ntwith F ift h Am en dm en t due pro ces s. Th atco urt, the n, m ay pr op erl y san ct io n t ho se witho utth e d is tri ctwhen th ei r co nduc t v io la te s o r fru st rat es th e co urt’s i nju nc ti ve ord ers . So, t oo , cou ldth e Del aware Ban krup tc y there with.”). The bankruptc y court may

issue such an injunctive order pur suant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) , see In re H ardy , 97 F.3d at 1389–90, rather than under

the All Writs Act. To be clea r, howeve r, the orde r is distinct from an injunctive orde r issued as the r emedy for the de fenda

nt’s brea ch of the right asserte d in the plaintiff’s complaint. See Klay v. United Hea lthgr oup, Inc., 376 F.3d 1092, 1092–1103 ( 11th Cir. 2004) (explaining the diff ere nces be tween “ traditional,” “statutory ,” and “ All Writ s Act” injunctions). 26Co urt ad

jud ic at e th e ri gh ts of C red it or s an d t he m em be rs of t he ir c la ss , no twi th st an di ng th atCred it or s an d t ho se si m il arl y si tu at edm ay

or m ay no t h av e in de pe nd en t ju ris di ct io na l t ie s t o t he Dis tri ctof De laware. 2 5 3. Thi s co nc lu si on do es no t fu ll y res ol ve th e m at te r atha nd , forth ere r em ai ns th e is su e o f ho w we are t o d is po se of t hi s ap pe al . Abo ve all , th e Del aware
By analogy , posit one alternative to Debtors’ c ourse in the pr esent setting : rather than 2 5 Creditors suingDebtors in state c ourt, Creditors sue Debtors in fede ral c ourt seeking relief from Debtor’ s bankruptcy

discharg e. Creditors’ reme dy is not an in personam a ction ag ainst Debtors, but relief thr oug h Fe d. R. Civ. P . 60(d)—madeapplicable to the bankruptc y courts, with ce rtain exceptions, by

Fe d. R. Bankr . P. 9024—which provides that a c ourt may “ente rtain an independe nt action to relieve a par ty from a judgment, order , or proc eeding ; gr ant re lief . . . to a defe ndant who wa s not personally notified of the a ction; or set aside a judgme nt for fr aud on the court.” Indeed, one such ground for relief from the discha

rg e injunction is lack of notice : A dischar g e under

section 727, 1141, 1228(a ), 1228(b) , or 1328(b) of this titl e does not dischar g e an individual debtor from any debt neither

listed nor schedule d under se ction 521(a) (1) of this ti tle, with the name, if known to the debtor, of the cre ditor to whom such debt is owed, in time to permit— (A) if such debt is not of a kind spec ified in para graph ( 2), (4) , or (6) of this subsection, tim ely

filing of a proof of cla im, unless such cre ditor had notice or

actua l knowledg e of the case in time for such timely filing; or (B ) if such de bt is of a kind specifie d in para g raph ( 2), (4) , or (6) of this subsection, tim ely

filing of a proof of cla im and timely

reque st for a deter mination of discharg eability of such de bt under one of such par agraphs, unless suc h cre ditor had notice or actua l knowledg e of the case in time for such timely filing a nd reque st . . . . 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3) . This is because in an in rem proc eeding , the enf orce ability

of an in re m judgme nt is premised upon either a ctual or c onstructive notice to a ny persons who ma

y have a claim to the re s. See, e.g ., Be tty K Ag encie s, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F .3d 1333, 1342 (11th Cir. 2005). 27Ban kr

up tc y Co urt s ho ul d b e th e co urt t o c on si de r th e m eri ts of De bt or s’ ass ert io n th atCred it or s ar e p ur su in g d is ch arg edcla im s. Th e si m pl es t o pt io n wo ul d b e to
rem an d the cas e wit h t he in st ru ct io n t ha t Deb to rs ’ co m pl ai ntbe di sm is se d wi th ou t pr ejud ic e. If th atwere t he di sp os it io n, Deb to rs pre su m ab ly w ou ldtu rnto th e Dela ware Ba nkrupt cy

Co urt fo r rel ie f. Taki ng th atco ur se , ho wev er, wo ul d s eem
un ne ces saril y

cu m be rs om e an d was te fu l o f jud ic ia l re so ur ces . In st ead , we bel ie ve th attrans ferr in g the cas e to th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Dis tri ctof De la ware wo ul d b e m or e eff ic ie nt . The b an kr

up tc y juri sd ic ti on an d v en ue st atut es pro vi de th at“ [a] di st ric t co urt m ay tra ns fer acas e
orpro ceed in g u nd er t it le 11 to a di st ric t co urt fo r an othe r di st ric t, i n t he in te res t o f jus ti ce o r fo r th e co nv en ie nc e o f th e p art ie s.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 14 12 . Firs t, i f ch arac te riz edas a n a tt em ptto en fo rce t he Co nf

irmatio n Ord er’s d is ch arg e in jun ct io n, Deb to rs ’ co m

pl ai ntin it ia te d a“pr oc eed in g u nd er t it le 11 ,” 28 U.S.C. § 1 41 2, t ha t t rig ge redth e Fl or id a Ban krup tc y Co urt’s s ta tu to ry

tra ns fer p owe r, se e Co nt ’l Nat’l Ban k o f Mi am i v . San ch ez (In re Tol ed o) , 17 0 F .3d13 40 , 13 45 (11 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (“ ‘Aris in g u nd er’ pro ceed in gs are m at te rs in vo ki ng a subs ta nt iv e ri gh t
crea te d b y

th e Ban krup tc y

Co de .” (ci ti ng W oo d v . W oo d (I n re W oo d) , 82 5 F .2d 90 , 97 (5t h C ir. 1 98 7) )); see als o 2 8 U.S.C. § 13 34 (b ) (g iv in g t he di st ric t co urts
or ig in al juri sd ic ti on “ of

all civ il pro ceed in gs ari si ng un de r ti tl e 1 1” ); I ns . Co. o f N.

28Am . v. NGC Set tl em en t Tru st& Asb es to s C la im s M gmt. Co rp . (Inre Nat ’l

Gy ps um Co .), 11 8 F .3d10 56 , 10 63 –6 4 (5 th Cir . 19 97 ) (“ [An ] act io n t o e nf or ce th e d is ch arg e in

jun ct io n . . . is a fed eral cau se of a ct io n, as se rti ng a st atut ory rig ht
un de r th e Ban kr

up tc y Co de .”). Thu s, § 14 12 ’s cas e-o r-p ro ceed in g p rere qu is it e is
sa ti sf ie d. Seco nd , alt ho ug h c ou rts cit e m yria d fa ct or s i n d et erm in in g wh ethe r to tra ns fer acas e u nd er § 14 12 “ in th e in te res t o f jus ti ce,” we th in k n o fa ct or s fa vo r 2 6 tra ns fer m or e h eav il y

he re tha n t ha t (1 ) th e tr an sf ero r fo ru m

ha s n o p owe r to ad jud ic at e Deb to rs ’ cl ai m

forrel ie f an d (2 ) th e tr an sf eree forum

is th e o nl y

co urt wit h ju ris di ct io n t o p ro vi de th e rel ie f Deb to rs see k. If t he cas e is tra ns ferr edto th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Dis tri ctof De la ware, t ha t co urt m ay refe r itto th e Del aware Ban krup tc y Co urt p ur su an t t o t ha t Di stric t Co urt’s p ro cedur es . See 28 U.S.C. § 1 57 (a) (“ Each di stric t co urt m ay pro vi de th atan y

or al l . . . pro ceed in gs ari si ng un de r ti tl e 1 1 o r ari si ng in or r el at edto a cas e u nd er ti tl e 1 1 s ha ll be refe rredto th e b an krup tc y jud ge s fo r th e d is tri ct .”). Acco rd in gl y , we sh al l v acat e th e Dis tri ctCo urt’s jud gm en t an d re m an d t he cas e wit h t he See, for example, the interest-of

-justice fa ctors listed in A.B. Re al Estate, Inc. v. 2 6 Br uno’s, Inc. (In re B runos, Inc.), 227 B .R. 311 (Ba nkr. N.D. A la. 1998): (1) “[e]conomics of estate a dminist ration”; (2) “[p] resumption in favor of the ‘home c ourt’”; ( 3) “[j] udicial eff iciency”; (4) “ [a] bility

to rec eive a

fair tr ial”; (6) “ [t ]he state’s intere st in having loc al controve rsies dec ided within its borders, by those familiar w ith its laws”; (7) “[e]nforcea bility of any judgme nt rende red” ; and (8) “ [p] laintiff’s orig inal choice of for um.” I d. at 324–25. 29in st ru ct io n t ha t the Dis tri ctCo urt t ran sf er the cas e to th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Dis tri ctof De la ware. III. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, t he jud gm en t o f th e Dis tri ctCo urt i s VACATED,
an d t he cas e is REMANDED to th e Dis tri ctCo urt fo r th e d is po si ti on setou t ab ov e. SO ORDERED.

30