UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Jane Does 1-5,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 15-11307

Lahkman Younis Al-Hakim, et al., Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER STRIKING NOTICE OF REMOVAL (Doc. #11)

Plaintiffs filed this case on April 8, 2015,1

 alleging that Defendants failed to pay them

minimum and overtime wages as required pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act2 and the

Workforce Opportunity Wage Act.3

 (Compl. Doc. #1). 

On April 24, 2015, Defendants Lahkman Younis Al-Hakim (“Al-Hakim”) and BFC Realty,

LLC (“BFC Realty”) (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a “Notice of Removal of BFC Realty, LLC

and Lahkman Younis Al-Hakim.” (Doc. #11). In this “Notice of Removal,” Defendants “assert

removal of these proceedings to the pending Chapter 11 proceedings of BFC Management

Company, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Case No.

1

 This case is a companion to a previous Eastern District of Michigan case entitled Jane

Does 1-10 v. BFC Management Company, Case No. 14-10522. That case was administratively

closed due to the imposition of an automatic bankruptcy stay upon BFC Management’s filing of

a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. (See Jane Does 1-10, Case No. 14-10522, Doc. #74). After

that case was closed, another companion case was filed in this District against Masoud Sesi.

(Jane Does 1-19 v. Masoud H. Sesi, Case No. 14-14698). That case was also administratively

closed due to the imposition of an automatic bankruptcy stay upon Masoud Sesi’s filing of a

Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. (See Jane Does 1-19, Case No. 14-14698, Doc. #7). 

2

 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.

3

 M.C.L. § 408.411 et seq.

2:15-cv-11307-SFC-MJH Doc # 13 Filed 05/04/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 174
14-55862-MAR.” (Notice of Removal, Doc. #11 at 6). Defendants claim that such removal is

warranted because this case is related to the bankruptcy case involving BFC Management

Company.4

Defendants assert that 28 U.S.C. § 1452 provides the authority for their purported removal

of this case from this Court to this district’s bankruptcy court. 28 U.S.C. § 1452 provides, in

pertinent part:

A party may remove any claim or cause of action in a civil action other than a

proceeding before the United States Tax Court or a civil action by a governmental

unit to enforce such governmental unit’s police or regulatory power, to the district

court for the district where such civil action is pending, if such district court has

jurisdiction of such claim or cause of action under section 1334 of this title.

28 U.S.C. § 1452(a). 

Contrary to Defendants’ assertion, the Court finds that 28 U.S.C. § 1452 does not permit

removal of a federal district court case to that district’s bankruptcy court. Although this Court could

find no Eastern District of Michigan or Sixth Circuit case directly on point, numerous other courts

have held that § 1452 does not authorize a party to remove a lawsuit from a federal district court to

the bankruptcy court within that district. In re Cornell & Co., Inc., 203 B.R. 585 (Bankr. E.D. Pa.

1997) (holding that debtor cannot remove matter from District Court for the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania to the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania); In re Sharif, 407

B.R. 316, 320 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2009) (noting that “there is no legal authority to support removal

from a federal district court to a bankruptcy court” because to do so would “jeopardize the district

courts’ referral authority regarding bankruptcy matters and undermine 28 U.S.C. § 157 which gives

district courts the authority to withdraw cases from the bankruptcy courts . . . .”); Doyle v. Mellon

4

 Bankruptcy Case Number 14-55862-MAR. 

2

2:15-cv-11307-SFC-MJH Doc # 13 Filed 05/04/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 175
Bank, N.A., 307 B.R. 462, 465 (E.D. Pa. 2004) (striking Notice of Removal that purported to remove

a district court action to a bankruptcy court); In re Mitchell, 206 B.R. 204, 207, 209 (Bankr. C.D.

Cal. 1997) (explaining that “the proper procedure for a party to use to request a district court to

transfer a lawsuit pending in that district court to a bankruptcy judge of the same district is for the

party seeking the transfer to move the district court to refer that lawsuit to the bankruptcy court for

further handling . . . .”); In re The Academy, Inc., 288 B.R. 286 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2002) (action

pending in district court cannot be removed to bankruptcy court; it must be referred to the

bankruptcy court); see also Bankruptcy Law Manual § 2:15 (5th ed.). 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendants’ purported Notice of Removal is

without legal effect. Accordingly, the Court shall STRIKE Defendants’ Notice of Removal (Doc.

#11) from the docket. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: May 4, 2015

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

May 4, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer McCoy 

Case Manager

3

2:15-cv-11307-SFC-MJH Doc # 13 Filed 05/04/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 176