Content area
Full Text
I. INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court has established the doctrine of complete preemption as a basis for removing state law claims that are so federal by their nature that they arise under federal law.1 The doctrine is an exception to the general rule that removal is possible only when the claim falls within original federal jurisdiction.2 Complete preemption converts all state law claims into federal claims for purposes of removal.3 The touchstone of removal jurisdiction is congressional intent: claims become removable if Congress clearly manifested its intent to completely preempt the subject area of law.4
The Supreme Court has applied the doctrine of complete preemption to only a few federal statutes.5 Although the Court has offered little guidance to the lower courts on how to identify completely preempted claims, lower courts have used the doctrine in the context of other statutes to remove state law claims with confusing and inconsistent results.6
The Ninth Circuit recently expanded the use of the doctrine to the Bankruptcy Code, holding that state law tort claims, including defamation and abuse of process brought by family members of an involuntary debtor against petitioning creditors for their actions in bankruptcy proceedings, are completely preempted by federal statute and therefore removable to federal court.7 Holding that a state law action is completely preempted by the Bankruptcy Code allows the removal of the action to federal court.8 The removal of § 303 cases into the federal forum serves an important federal interest of keeping the bankruptcy process uniform.9 At the same time, complete preemption raises the question of proper allocation of power between the federal government and the states.10 Applying complete preemption to § 303 of the Bankruptcy Code also affects the rights of individual debtors and creditors. Although the Bankruptcy Code provides a remedy to the debtors harmed by the involuntary filing, individuals may choose suing in the state court to recover damages under traditional common law doctrines.11 The defendant creditor, on the other hand, may prefer the federal forum exactly because of the limited nature of recovery under the Bankruptcy Code.12
Although the Ninth Circuit had previously held that the filing of a bankruptcy petition, and derivatively any collateral attempt to attack the validity of the filing, falls within the original and...