2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
10-16-2008 

# In Re: M ys t ic T ank
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4033

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" In Re: M ys t ic T ank " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 283. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/283H on. L oui s H
. Pol l ak, Seni or J udge, U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct * C our tfort he East ern D i s t ri ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on. P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 06- 4033

I N R E : M YS T I C T ANK L I NE S CO RP OR AT I ON,

A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D
. C
. N o. 05- cv- 04783) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A nne E. T hom ps on

Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober7, 2008 B efor e: SL O V I T E R and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges , and

PO L L A K , D i s t r i ctJ udge

* ( Fi l ed: O ct ober16, 2008 )

_______ A lbert A
. C iardi, III N ico le M . N ig re lli C iar d i C iar d i & A stin Phi l adel phi a, PA l 9l 03 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ant2 O r en L. Z eve O ffi ce of A t t or neyG ener al of the S tat e o f N ew Y o rk N ew Y or k, N Y 10271 A t t or neyforA ppel l ee

_____

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______ SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. I n t hi s appea l w e r evi s i tthe pol i ce pow erexce pt i on t o t he aut om at i c s t ayi n bankrupt cyand cons i derthe ext entt o w hi ch a bankrupt cycour thas excl us i ve s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on. I. F act ual B ackground an d P roce dural H i s t ory R
. J
. G uerr er a, I nc. , the pr edec es s ori n i nt er es tof appe l l ant M y s t i c Tank L i nes C orpor at i on ( her eaf t er“M y s t i c”) , w as one of a n u m b er o f c o m p an ies th at de li v ere d g aso li n e to a N ew Y o rk gas s t at i on. I n 1997, t he St at e of N ew Y or k ( her eaf t er“N ew Y or k”) l earned thata l eak a tthe s t at i on had cont ami nat ed the l ocal s oi l and gr oundw at erw i t h petr ol eum produc t s . A s the N ew Y ork cou rtheld i n rende ri ng the d efau l tj ud gm ent agai nst M y s t i c, N ew Y or k s t at e l aw al l ow s the s t at e t o r ecove rdamages fr om anys hi pperfordi s char ged petr ol eum i f the l eak c an be t r ace d t o t he del i veryof the gas ol i ne and the s hi pperhad contr ol overdel i very . N
. Y
. N av. L aw § 181 ( M cK i nney2004)
. I n M ay 2 0 0 4 , N ew Y o rk b rou g h t suitin the S u p rem e C o u rto f N ew Y o rk (a tr ia l c o u rt ) a g a in s t “ a ll p o te n tia l d is c h a rg e rs o n th e s ite ,” n am ing G u errera as a d ef en d an t. A p p . at 29 5
. N eith er G u errera n o r its su c c e ss o r M y stic e v e r a n sw e re d th e N e w Y o rk c o m p lain t. O n J une 1, 2004, M y s t i c fi l ed forbankrupt cyi n t he U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e D istri ct of N ew Jerse y . In3 Sept ember2004, M y s t i c i nform ed N ew Y or k bot h t hati thad fi l ed forbankrupt cyand thati thad ac qui r ed G uerr er a, one of the defe ndant s i n N ew Y or k’ s act i on. O n O ct ober18, 2004, N ew Y or k fi l ed a pr oof of c l ai m agai ns tM y s t i c i n t he B ankrupt cy C our t( C l ai m N um ber161) bas ed on the damages forthe cl eanu p o f th e c o n tam in a tio n . T h e re a f ter , m a tters p ro c e e d e d in b o th th e N e w Y o rk sta te c o u rt a n d th e N e w Je rse yB a n k ru p tcy C o u rt. I n J une 2005, N ew Y or k obt ai ned a de faul tj udgm ent ag ains t G u errera in it s state co u rtac ti o n in li g h t of G u errera ’s fai l ur e t o fi l e an a ns w ert o i t s compl ai nt . I n t he s ame m ont h, J une 2005, M y s t i c fi l ed obj ect i ons t o N ew Y or k’ s bankrupt cy cl ai m . M y s t i c al l eged thatthe “c l ai m w as bas ed on pr e- pet i t i on l i t i gat i on w her ei n t he D ebt ordi s put ed al l s uch l i abi l i t y . ” A pp. at 50. T he nextm ont h M y s t i c fi l ed anotherm ot i on t o expunge the c laim , arg u in g th a t th e c laim h a d b e e n f iled late a n d th a t ev e n if t he cl ai m w er e al l ow ed, i tw oul d be cove r ed bythe i ns ur ance G u e rre ra h a d in p lac e w h e n d e liv e rin g th e f u e l. T h e B a n k ru p tc yC o u rt h e ld a h e a ri n g o n th e c la im
. D u rin g th is h e a rin g th e law y e r re p re se n tin g N e w Y o rk S tate a rg u e d th a t th e c laim h a d b e e n f iled o n tim e a n d th a t th e c laim s houl d be al l ow ed r egar dl es s of w hetherthe i ns ur ance compani es w er e w i l l i ng t o pay . N ew Y or k al s o count er ed M y s t i c’ s ar gum entt hatl i abi l i t yw as s t i l l di s put ed bypoi nt i ng out that a jud g m en t had b ee n en tered in the N ew Y o rk state c o u rt act i on. W hen M y s t i c att empt ed t o ar gue thati thad neve rbeen s erved w i t h t he compl ai nti n t he N ew Y or k act i on, the B ankrupt cyJ udge r es ponded: [B ] utt heyat t ache d t he j udgm entt o t hei rr es pons e, s o I ca n ’tset aside the ju d g m en t i n N ew Y o rk S tat e. I do n ’t have the r i ghtt o do t hat
. W e have the Ful l Fai th and C re d it S tatu te. F e d e ra l C o u rts h a v e to re c o g n ize S tate j udgm ent s . A l l r i ght ? S o i f y ou w antt o att ack that ju d g m e n t yo u ’v e g o t to g o to N e w Y o rk S ta te . . . . A p p . at 23
. T h u s, the B an k rup tcyC o u rtall o w ed N ew Y o rk’s C lai m N u m b er 1 6 1 b ase d o n the s tat e c o u rtjud g m en t. H o w ev er, N ew Y or k’ s addi t i onal cl ai m forot hercl eanup c os t s ( des i gnat edA s defi ned i n B l ack’ s L aw D i ct i onary , c. a. v. i s an 1 abbr evi at i on forcur i a advi s ar i vul t , m eani ng “th e co u r tw i l l be a d v is e d , w ill c o n s id e r, w ill d e lib e ra te .” 4 C laim N u m b e r 2 0 7 ) w a s e x p u n g e d a f ter N e w Y o rk c o n c e d e d it fi l ed thatcl ai m l at e. M y stic a p p e a led th e a llo w a n c e o f C laim N u m b e r 1 6 1 to t he D i s t r i ctC our t , w hi ch af fi r m ed the dec i s i on of the B an k rup tcyC o u rt . T h e D istri ct C o u rtrejected M y sti c’s ar gum entt hatN ew Y or k vi ol at ed the aut om at i c s t ayby obt ai ni ng t he def

aul tj udgm entaft eri tfi l ed the cl ai m i n t he B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt. T h e D istric t C o u rt h e ld N e w Y o rk ’s c laim f e ll w ith in th e p o lic e p o w e r e x c e p tio n to th e a u to m a tic s ta y . M y s t i c ’ s t i me l ya p p e a l o f th a td e c i s i o n i s b e f

o r e u s n o w. W hi l e the ca s e w as on appea l , ther e w as a r el evant d ev elop m en t i n the N ew Y o rk state a cti o n . B ec au se N ew Y o rk had fa i l ed t o i ncl ude af fi davi t s es t abl i s hi ng the conne ct i on betw een the gas ol i ne del i ver i es and the gas ol i ne l eak, the N ew Y or k Supr eme C our t , A ppel l at e D i vi s i on, r ever s ed the s t at e tr i al co u rt ’s de fa u ltjud g m en t w ith o u t prejud ice to N ew Y o rk r e n e wi n g i t s a p p l i c a t i o n . T h e p a r t i e s n o t i f i e d th i s c o u r ta n d we h e ld th e a p p e a l c .a .v . p e n d in g f u rt h e r a c tio n in th e s ta te c o u rt . 1 N e w Y o rk re n e w e d its m o tio n f o r d e f a u lt j u d g m e n t in th e sta te cour tact i on, t hi s t i m e i ncl udi ng aff i davi t s es t abl i s hi ng the nece s s aryconnec t i on. T he N ew Y or k cour tagai n gr ant ed the defa ul tj udgm entoverthe obj ect i on of M y s t i c. B oth par t i es then ask ed that this co u rtreinstate the ap p ea l t o the c alen d ar. II. Juri s di ct i on and St andard of R evi ew T hi s cour thas j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the dec i s i on of the D istri ct C o u rtu p h o lding the d ec isi o n o f th e B an k rup tcyC o u rt under28 U
. S. C
. § 158( d) ( 1)
. T he appe al i s fr om a fi nal or der and w as t i m el yfi l ed.5 M y s t i c r ai s es onl yl egal i s s ues . T he l egal concl us i ons of t he D i s t r i ctC our tand B ankrupt cyC our tar e s ubj ectt o de novo r evi ew . I n r e I ndi an Pal m s A s s ocs . , L t d. , 61 F. 3d 197, 203 ( 3d C ir
. 1 9 9 5 ). III . D i s cus s i on M y sti c m ak es o n lytw o arg u m en ts i n it s o p en ing b ri ef
. It cont ends : “( 1) T he Fi l i ng O f The D efa ul tJ udgm entA gai ns tT he D ebt orC ons t i tut ed A n A t t empt t o E nfor ce A M oneyJ udgm ent A nd T her efor e V i ol at ed The A ut om at i c St ayA r i s i ng U nder11 U
. S. C
. § 362( a) , ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at12; and “( 2) T he J udgm ent I s V oi d A b I ni t o [s i c] B eca us e N ew Y or k V i ol at ed The A ut om at i c St ayA r i s i ng under11 U
. S. C
. § 362( a) A nd O nce N ew Y or k Fi l ed A Pr oof O f C l ai m N ew Y or k Subm i t t ed To T he J u ri s d ic tio n O f

T h e B a n k ru p tc yC o u rt ,” A p p e lla n t’ s B r. a t 1 6
. A s N e w Y o rk p o in ts o u t in its b rie f , b o th a rg u m e n ts a re so u n d ly f o re c lo se d b yo u r p re c e d e n ts a n d b yth e sta tu to rytex t. A
. T he A ut om at i c St ay U ndert he B ankrupt cyC ode, the fi l i ng of a ba nkrupt cy pet i t i on gener al l y“oper at es as a s t ay. . . of the comm ence m ent or conti nu at i on . . . of a judici al
. . . act i on or proceeding ag ai nst t he debt ort hatw as orcoul d have be en comm ence d befor e the c o m m e n c e m e n t” o f

th e b a n k ru p tc yc a s e . 1 1 U .S .C . § 3 6 2 (a )( 1 ). T her e ar e exc ept i ons t o thi s rul e, how ever . O ne of the pr i nci pal exce pt i ons t o t he aut om at i c s t ayi s forthe exe r ci s e of pol i ce p o w e r, as th e C o d e p ro v id e s th a t th e sta yd o e s n o t ap p lyto t he comm ence m entorcont i nuat i on of an a ct i on or pr ocee di ng bya governm ent al uni t. . . t o enfor ce s uch g o v ern m en tal u n it ’s .
. . p o li ce an d reg u lat o ryp o w er, i ncl udi ng t he enf

or cementof a j udgm entot herthan a m oneyj udgm ent , obt ai ned i n an ac t i on orpr ocee di ng by t he governm ent al uni tt o enfor ce s uch governm ent al u n it’ s . . . p o lic e o r r e g u la to ry p o w e r . . . .6 1 1 U
. S
. C
. § 3 6 2 (b)(4 ). A lth o u g h o n it s fa ce the d ef au ltjud g m en t N ew Y o rk obt ai ned aga i ns tG uerr er a i n s t at e courtappea r s t o fal l w i t hi n t he pol i ce pow erexce pt i on t o t he aut om at i c s t ay , M y s t i c ar gues that N e w Y o rk is a ttem p tin g to e n f o rc e a m o n e yju d g m e n t, w h ich is expr es s l yexcl uded fr om the pol i ce pow erexce pt i on ( s om et i m es r e f e r r e d t o a s “ t h e e x c e p t i o n t o th e e x c e p t i o n ” )
. M y s t i c v i e ws t he N ew Y or k s t at e def aul tj udgm entas an att empt t o enfor ce a m oneyj udgm entbeca us e N ew Y or k s oughtthe j udgm entfor m oneyal r eadyexpende d i n cl eanup. M y s t i c r el i es on our deci s i ons i n Penn T err a Lt d. v. D ep’ tof Envl t . R es . , 733 F. 2d 267 ( 3d C i r . 1984) , and U ni t ed St at es v. N i col et , I nc. , 857 F. 2d 2 0 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 8 ). It m isre a d s th o se c a se s. A lth o u g h b o th c a se s e x a m in e th e in ter se c tio n o f e n v iro n m e n tal c lea n u p c o sts and bankrupt cycl ai m s , theydo nots uppor tthe pr opos i t i on for wh i c h M y s t i c c i t e s t h e m. In P en n T erra, w e c o n side red w h ethe r th e d eb tor’s obl i gat i on, pur s uantt o a pr e- pet i t i on cons entdecr ee t o r emedy so m e o f its e n v iro n m e n tal p ro tec tio n v io latio n s in c o rp o ra ted in to a s t at e courti nj unct i on or der , fel l w i t hi n t he exc ept i on t o t he aut om at i c s t ay . T hi s cour thel d t hatan or dercompel l i ng the debt ort o cl ean up a n envi r onm ent al haza r d w as notenfor cement o f a m o n e yju d g m e n t. 73 3 F .2 d a t 2 7 8 . W e e x p lain e d th a t itis t he enf or cementof a moneyj udgm entbya s ei zur e oran att empt to se ize a d e b to r’s p ro p e rtyth a t is p ro sc rib e d b yth e a u to m a tic s t a y. Penn T err a w as fol l ow ed byN i col et , w hi ch pr es ent ed fac t s near l yi dent i cal t o t hos e i n t he pr es entcas e. T he U ni t ed S tate s s o u g h t to b rin g to trial its c laim to re c o v e r th e c o sts it expende d i n t he cl eanup of a haz ar dous w as t e s i t e thatN i col et o w n e d a t th e tim e th e s ite w a s c o n ta m in a te d . 8 5 7 F .2 d a t 2 0 2
. N icolet co n tend ed that b ec au se th e g o v ern m en t sou g h t t o sec u re a ju d g m e n t f

o r p re -p e tit io n e x p e n d itu re s, it w a s s im p ly at t empt i ng t o col l ectm oney , and thus w as out s i de the s cope of t he pol i ce pow er . T he D i s t r i ctC our tr ej ect ed thatar gum ent , and w e a g re e d . W e e x a m in e d th e leg isla tiv e h isto ryo f th e a u to m a tic st ayprovis i on , and no t ed thatbo t h the Sen at e and H ou se7 C o m m itt e e R e p o rts s tate d th a t an a c tio n b ya g o v e rn m e n tal u n it at t empt i ng t o fi x damages forvi ol at i on of, i nt eral i a, an e n v ir o n m e n ta l la w is n o t s ta y e d u n d e r t h e a u to m a tic s ta y . W e s t at ed thatt he pol i ce pow erexce pt i on perm i t s “the entr yof a m oneyj udgm ent , butdoes notext end t o perm i tenfor cementof a m oneyj udgm ent . ” I d. at208 ( emphasi s om i t t ed) ( ci t i ng S. R ep. No
. 9 8 9 , a t5 2 , a s r e p r i n t e d i n 1 9 7 8 U. S
. C. C. A. N. a t5 8 3 8 ; H. R. R ep. N o. 595, at343, as r epr i nt ed i n 1978 U
. S. C
. C
. A
. N
. at 6 2 9 9 ). I n N i col et , as i n thi s cas e, the governm entm er el ys ought t o r educe t o j udgm enti t s cl ai m forthe cos t s i texpende d forthe pr e- pet i t i on s i t e cl ean- up, an ac t i on w e hel d w as notone enfor ci ng a moneyj udgm entbeca us e the debt or ’ s pr oper t yhad notbeen s ei zed. N i col et , 857 F. 2d at208. T her e i s no m e a n in g f

u l d istin c tio n b e tw e e n N ico let a n d th is c a se . A s in N i col et , N ew Y or k’ s s t at e courtact i on s oughtonl ythe entr yof a j udgm ent . N ew Y or k’ s act i on i n obt ai ni ng the def aul tj udgm ent w a s th e re f

o re w ith in th e p o lice p o w e r e x c e p tio n a n d w a s n o t a v i o l a t i o n o f

t h e a u t o m a t i c s t a y. T h is co n clus ion also req u ir es re jecti o n o f M y sti c’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e d e f

a u lt j u d g m e n t is v o id a b in iti o b e c a u se it w as obt ai ned i n vi ol at i on of the aut om at i c s t ay . A s the j udgm ent w as notobt ai ned i n vi ol at i on of the aut om at i c s t ay , i tcannotbe h e ld v o id a b in iti o . W e th e re f o re h o ld th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o te r ri n r e

j e c t i n g M ys t i c ’ s r e l i a n c e o n th e a u t o m a t i c s t a y. B
. W hethert he B ankrupt cyC our tJ ur i s di ct i on w as E xcl us i ve I n i t s s econd a r gum ent , M y s t i c cont ends thatthe N ew Y or k s t at e courtdi d nothave s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on t o i s s ue t he def aul tj udgm ent . M y s t i c ar gues thatbeca us e N ew Y or k had su b m itted its cl aim to the N ew Jerse yB an k rup tcyC o u rtb ef o re N e w Y o rk so u g h t d e f

a u lt j u d g m e n t in th e N e w Y o rk sta te c o u rt, i t s cl ai m fel l w i t hi n t he s ol e j ur i s di ct i on of the B ankrupt cy C o u rt. T h is a rg u m e n t f a ils a s w e ll. B efor e w e cons i derw hetherthe N ew Y or k s t at e courthad juri sd ict ion to issue the d ef au ltjud g m en t, w e m u st fir st i n q u ir e8 w h ethe r w e sh o u ld en tert ain th is argu m en t i n li g h t of M y sti c’s a p p a re n t f

a ilu re to ra ise th e iss u e in th e D istric t C o u rt. “T h is co u rth as c o n sist en tl yh eld th at i t w il l no t con side r i ssu es th at are r ai s ed fort he fi r s tt i m e on appe al
. ” H arr i s v. C i t yof Phi l adel phi a, 35 F. 3d 840, 845 ( 3d C i r . 1994)
. W e depa r tfr om t hi s rul e, w hi ch i s one of w ai ver , onl yi n exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s . D el aw ar e N at i on v. Penns y l vani a, 446 F. 3d 410, 416 ( 3d C i r . 2006)
. A l though M y s t i c di d ar gue i n t he D i s t r i ct C our tt hatt he N ew Y or k s t at e courtj udgm entw as voi d ab i ni t i o, itb ase d it s arg u m en t entir elyo n w h ethe r th e N ew Y o rk c o u rt ’s iss u a n c e o f

th e d e f a u lt j u d g m e n t w a s a v io latio n o f th e a u to m a tic s t ay . I tdi d notar gue thatthe B ankrupt cyC our thad exc l us i ve ju risd ictio n o v e r th e v a lid ityo f th e c laim . A lth o u g h w e c o u ld vi ew t hi s ar gum entas w ai ved, i tdoes tr ench upon the ju risd ictio n o f

th e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt, w h ich M y stic c o n ten d s is excl us i ve, and w e w i l l exer ci s e ourdi s cr et i on t o cons i der M y s t i c’ s ar gum ent . U nderthe s t atut orys cheme forbankrupt cy m att ers, estab li sh ed fo ll o w ing the d ec isi o n in N
. P ipeline C o n str . C o. v. M ar athon Pi pe Li ne C o. , 458 U
. S. 50 ( 1982) , the di s t r i ct cour t s have or i gi nal j ur i s di ct i on i n al l cas es ar i s i ng undert i t l e 11 o f th e U n ited S tate C o d e . 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 4 (a ). T h e yg e n e ra lly re f e r s u c h m a tte rs to b a n k ru p tc yju d g e s . 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 5 7 (a ). D i s t r i ctcour t s have or i gi nal , butnotexcl us i ve, j ur i s di ct i on over a ll c iv il s u its re la te d to th e b a n k ru p tc yf ilin g . 2 8 U .S .C . § 13 34 (b)
. O f no t e, t his sect i on al so speci fi cal l yst at es, not hi ng i n t hi s s ect i on pr event s a di s t r i ctcour ti n t he in ter e st o f

ju stic e , o r in th e in ter e st o f c o m ityw ith S tate cour t s orr es pectforSt at e l aw , fr om abs t ai ni ng fr om hear i ng a part i cul arpr ocee di ng ar i s i ng undert i t l e 11 or ar i s i ng i n orr el at ed t o a ca s e undert i t l e 11. 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 3 3 4 (c)(1). I ti s w i t houta doubt , as M y s t i c ar gues , thatw hen N ew Y o rk f iled its p ro o f

o f c laim in th e B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt, i t s ubm i t t ed t o t he j ur i s di ct i on of the B ankrupt cyC our t . I tdoes notfol l ow t hatt he B ankrupt cyC our thad exc l us i ve j ur i s di ct i on overal l as pect s of the cl ai m . N o pr ovi s i on of the B ankrupt cy C ode r equi r es t he B ankrupt cyC our tt o hearal l “r el at ed t o”9 cl ai m s. N ew Y or k has notdi s put ed the author i t yof the B ankrupt cyC our tt o al l ow ordi s al l ow cl ai m s . I ndeed, the B ankrupt cyC our ti n t hi s cas e al l ow ed M y s t i c’ s C l ai m N um ber 161, w hi l e di s al l ow i ng i t s C l ai m N um ber207. I tdi s al l ow ed C l ai m N um ber207 w i t houti nqui r i ng i nt o t he val i di t yof the cl ai m unders t at e l aw beca us e i tw as fi l ed l at e. A s i s evi dent f ro m th e lan g u a g e o f

2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 4 (c )(1 ), th e d istric t co u rts m a y , b u t ar e n o t re q u ire d to , p ro c e e d c o n c u rre n tlyw ith a sta te cour ton s om e as pect s of a ba nkrupt cycl ai m . T hus , i n Penn T erra, w e a ck n o w ledg ed the righ t of the P en n sy lvan ia st ate c o u rt to iss u e its o rd e r c o m p e lli n g th e d e b to r to p ro c e e d w ith r emedi at i on of the cont ami nat ed s i t e, notw i t hs t andi ng thatthe cl ai m forr ecove r yof the cos t s w as pendi ng i n t he B ankrupt cy C our t . T hi s w oul d nothave be en pos s i bl e had the j ur i s di ct i on of t he B ankrupt cyC our tbeen e xcl us i ve. T he i s s ue w as s ucci nct l ydi s cus s ed i n Sander s v. C i t yof B rad y(In re B rad yM u n . G as C o rp.), 9 3 6 F
. 2 d 2 1 2 , 2 1 8 (5th C ir
. 1991) , w her e the courthel d t hat t he onl yas pectof the bankrupt cypr ocee di ng overw hi ch t he di s t r i ctcour t s and thei rbankrupt cyuni t s have e x c lu s iv e ju ri s d ic tio n is “ th e b a n k ru p tc yp e titio n its e lf.” See I n r e W ood, 825 F. 2d 90, 92 ( 5th C i r . 1987)
. I n other m at t er s ar i s i ng i n orr el at ed t o t i t l e 11 ca s es , unl es s the C ode pr ovi des ot herw i s e, s t at e court s have c oncurr ent ju ri s d ic tio n . . . . A s t he N ew Y or k s t at e courthad j ur i s di ct i on t o ent erthe defa ul tj udgm ent , t he B ankrupt cyC our tpr oper l yal l ow ed the c l a i m. I V. C oncl usi on Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof t he D i s t r i ctC our tt hatt he B ankrupt cyC our tpr oper l yal l ow ed10 C l ai m N um ber161.