Opinion ID: 1436350
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Abstention for Lack of Core Bankruptcy Jurisdiction

Text: OCWD also asserts that the District Court was required to abstain (and therefore to remand to the state court of origin) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2) because OCWD's claims neither aris[e] under Title 11 nor do they aris[e] in or relate[ ] to cases under title 11. See 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a)-(b). The District Court rejected this argument, MTBE, 522 F.Supp.2d at 566-68, and OCWD does not contend that its approach is compelled by this Court's prior opinion in MTBE. To the contrary, OCWD acknowledges that this Court had no occasion in MTBE to resolve whether the District Court had `core' bankruptcy jurisdiction. Pet. at 12. We therefore do not address OCWD's argument because of the general rule that [we] avoid determining jurisdictional issues on a petition for mandamus. In re Ivy, 901 F.2d at 10. Instead, we will reserve this issue until it appears in the course of ordinary appellate review.