UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

In re: Case No. 08-14801

Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

COLLINS & AIKMAN CORPORATION,

et al.,

Bankruptcy Case No. 05-55927

Debtors. Chapter 11

______________________________/ Hon. Steven Rhodes

MARTIN STAMM,

Claimant,

v.

COLLINS & AIKMAN LITIGATION TRUST,

Objector.

______________________________/

ORDER SETTING VENUE FOR

CLAIMANT’S PENDING PERSONAL INJURY TORT CLAIM

At a session of said Court, held in

the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan

on December 7, 2009 

PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen

Chief Judge, United States District Court

In April of 2004, Claimant Martin Stamm brought suit in the United States District

Court for the Central District of Illinois against his employer, a predecessor-in-interest to

Debtor Collins & Aikman Corporation, alleging that he had been denied a promotion in

violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. In

2:08-cv-14801-GER-SDP Doc # 4 Filed 12/07/09 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 9
1

In January of 2006, Claimant filed a general unsecured claim with the Bankruptcy Court,

asserting damages in the amount of $500,000 arising from Debtor’s alleged violation of his

rights under the ADA. Claimant also filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court seeking a

transfer of venue regarding this claim to the United States District Court for the Central District

of Illinois, the district in which his claim arose. The Bankruptcy Court held a hearing on this

motion on May 22, 2008, only to learn at this hearing that the Collins & Aikman Litigation

Trust, as successor to Debtor Collins & Aikman Corporation and its debtor subsidiaries, had yet

to file an objection to Claimant’s claim. Following this hearing, the Litigation Trust filed an

objection to this claim, the objection was overruled, and the Litigation Trust filed a second

objection to this claim, upon which the Bankruptcy Court has yet to rule. (For convenience, the

Court will refer to both Collins & Aikman and the Litigation Trust as the “Debtor” throughout

the remainder of this order.)

2

May of 2005, however, Debtor filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the

Bankruptcy Code, and Claimant subsequently was enjoined from pursuing his ADA claim

against Debtor pursuant to the terms of a plan of reorganization confirmed by the

Bankruptcy Court.1

 By order dated October 24, 2008 and a recommendation entered on

November 12, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court has referred the matter to this Court for a

determination whether Claimant should proceed with his pending ADA suit against

Debtor in Illinois, or whether his claim should be tried in this Court. For the reasons set

forth briefly below, the Court finds that this claim can be more effectively and efficiently

litigated before the Illinois district court.

The venue determination before this Court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5),

which provides:

The district court shall order that personal injury tort and wrongful

death claims shall be tried in the district court in which the bankruptcy case

is pending, or in the district court in the district in which the claim arose, as

determined by the district court in which the bankruptcy case is pending.

Local Rule 83.50(e)(1)(D) of this District operates in tandem with this statute, providing

2:08-cv-14801-GER-SDP Doc # 4 Filed 12/07/09 Pg 2 of 7 Pg ID 10
2

In their submissions to the Bankruptcy Court, the parties cited an altogether different

change-of-venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1412, as bearing upon the choice of an appropriate venue

here. This Court, however, concurs in the Fourth Circuit’s observation that § 1412 “provides no

authority whatsoever to a district court sitting in bankruptcy in one district and having

jurisdiction of the bankruptcy to transfer the venue of a case against the bankrupt to another

district.” A.H. Robins Co. v. Piccinin (In re A.H. Robins Co.), 788 F.2d 994, 1011 (4th Cir.

1986); see also Calumet National Bank v. Levine, 179 B.R. 117, 121 (N.D. Ind. 1995) (finding

that § 157(b)(5) overrides the more general change-of-venue statute, § 1412, in cases where a

court is determining the proper venue for a personal injury tort suit against a debtor). Moreover,

it is debatable whether Claimant’s filing of a claim has given rise to a “case or proceeding” that

might be subject to transfer under § 1412. See Maritime Asbestosis Legal Clinic v. United States

Lines, Inc. (In re United States Lines, Inc.), 216 F.3d 228, 236 (2d Cir. 2000). Thus, § 1412 is

inapplicable here, except perhaps to the extent that the case law under that statute suggests

factors that might be helpful to the Court’s inquiry under § 157(b)(5).

3

that “[t]he bankruptcy clerk will submit the necessary papers to the district clerk when . . .

a bankruptcy judge determines that a case or proceeding is one in which a personal injury

tort or wrongful death claim is to be tried in a district court under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5).” 

The parties are agreed that Claimant’s ADA claim is a “personal injury tort” claim within

the meaning of the statute and local rule. Consequently, the Court is called upon only to

decide whether this personal injury tort claim should be tried here or “in the district court

in the district in which the claim arose” — i.e., the District Court for the Central District

of Illinois, where Claimant’s ADA suit remains pending.

As one court has aptly observed, § 157(b)(5) “does not favor one forum or set forth

guidelines for the court to follow in making the forum determination.” In re UNR

Industries, Inc., 74 B.R. 146, 149 (N.D. Ill. 1987). Likewise, the parties have provided

little or no assistance in identifying the appropriate factors for the Court to consider in

selecting a venue.2

 Nonetheless, in choosing a forum under § 157(b)(5), the courts have

2:08-cv-14801-GER-SDP Doc # 4 Filed 12/07/09 Pg 3 of 7 Pg ID 11
3

The abstention inquiry also involves considerations of comity and the predominance of

issues of state law, see White Motor Credit, 761 F.2d at 273-74, but these factors have far less

significance in selecting an appropriate forum under § 157(b)(5). This is particularly true here,

where Claimant’s ADA claim is governed by federal law.

4

found it appropriate to balance the interests of the claimant against the need to avoid

undue interference with the efficient administration of the bankruptcy estate. See, e.g.,

Stokes v. Southeast Hotel Properties, Ltd., 877 F. Supp. 986, 1001 (W.D.N.C. 1994); INR

Industries, 74 B.R. at 149. Similarly, in the analogous context of deciding whether to

abstain in favor of a pending state court personal injury suit against a bankruptcy debtor,

or to instead invoke § 157(b)(5) to exercise jurisdiction over this personal injury claim,

the courts have considered such factors as (i) whether the district court’s exercise of

jurisdiction will result in piecemeal litigation, with the pending state court suit going

forward as to other non-debtor parties who cannot be brought before the district court; (ii)

the effect of abstention on the efficient administration of the bankruptcy estate; (iii) the

degree of relatedness of the personal injury suit to the bankruptcy case; and (iv)

considerations of judicial economy. See, e.g., Citibank, N.A. v. White Motor Corp. (In re

White Motor Credit), 761 F.2d 270, 273-74 (6th Cir. 1985); Mann v. Waste Management

of Ohio, Inc., 253 B.R. 211, 214 (N.D. Ohio 2000).3

Upon weighing these various considerations in this case, the Court concludes that

Claimant’s ADA claim should be tried in the district in which it arose, through the vehicle

of Claimant’s pending suit before the Illinois district court. First and foremost, it is

evident that Claimant’s interests would best be served by allowing him to pursue his

2:08-cv-14801-GER-SDP Doc # 4 Filed 12/07/09 Pg 4 of 7 Pg ID 12
5

ADA claim in the Illinois district court, where this claim accrued at Claimant’s place of

employment in the Central District of Illinois, he and most or all of his witnesses are

located in that district, he is represented by Illinois counsel, and it does not appear that

any of the fact witnesses are Michigan residents. Accordingly, if the claim were tried in

this Court, Claimant would be unable to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses,

and he would incur considerable expense and other burdens in securing the attendance of

willing witnesses. Likewise, Claimant’s own participation would be more costly and

burdensome if his claim were to be litigated before this Court, where he would have to

retain local counsel and travel to Michigan for trial and perhaps some pretrial

proceedings.

Judicial economy also would be better served by litigating Claimant’s claim before

the Illinois district court. Claimant’s suit was pending in that court for over a year before

Debtor filed its Chapter 11 petition, and the parties presumably engaged in considerable

discovery during that period. More recently, the parties evidently conducted at least some

additional discovery in late 2007, before the Illinois district court was advised that the

case could not proceed any farther in light of Debtor’s bankruptcy proceeding. Thus, it

appears likely that Claimant’s claim could be more promptly and efficiently tried in the

Illinois district court as opposed to this one, where any such litigation before this Court

would have to start at square one, some discovery would likely have to be retaken, and

this Court would have to familiarize itself with details of the case of which the Illinois

district court already is aware.

2:08-cv-14801-GER-SDP Doc # 4 Filed 12/07/09 Pg 5 of 7 Pg ID 13
6

Finally, considerations of efficient administration of the bankruptcy estate do not

offset these factors in favor of the Central District of Illinois. This is not a case where

Claimant’s ADA claim is but one of many similar personal injury tort claims asserted

against Debtor, such that economies of scale could be achieved through the consolidation

of all such claims before this Court. Compare A.H. Robins, 788 F.2d at 1011 (noting that

the “thousands” of pending personal injury tort claims in that case supported “a

centralization of all” such claims “in the district court having jurisdiction of the

bankruptcy”). This Court “is not setting thousands of personal injury cases for trial,” INR

Industries, 74 B.R. at 149, but is merely selecting a venue for a single, standalone claim. 

Thus, while it would undoubtedly be less burdensome and expensive for Debtor to litigate

this claim in this Court rather than the Illinois district court, it cannot be said that this

difference is substantial, particularly where Debtor and its counsel would be obligated to

travel to Illinois in any event to take discovery from any witnesses residing in that State. 

Moreover, to the extent that Debtor argues that the implementation of its plan of

reorganization might be delayed by having to litigate Claimant’s claim in the Illinois

district court, this Court has already noted the likelihood that this claim might well be

more promptly resolved in Illinois than here, given the head start the Illinois court has

achieved in presiding over Claimant’s case since 2004. Claimant is entitled to pursue his

claim before some court, after all, and Debtor has not explained why the selection of the

Illinois district court for this litigation is likely to result in significantly greater expense or

delay in the administration of the bankruptcy estate.

2:08-cv-14801-GER-SDP Doc # 4 Filed 12/07/09 Pg 6 of 7 Pg ID 14
7

Accordingly,

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

157(b)(5), that the personal injury tort claim of Claimant Martin Stamm be tried in the

United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, in conjunction with the suit

brought by Claimant in that court in April of 2004.

s/Gerald E. Rosen 

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: December 7, 2009

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

on December 7, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Ruth Brissaud 

Case Manager

2:08-cv-14801-GER-SDP Doc # 4 Filed 12/07/09 Pg 7 of 7 Pg ID 15