Eberle v. Stegman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• rejecting argument that transactions must be “central to the claim” for jurisdiction to exist under the Edge Act, and observing that the Second Circuit in AJG “apparently was not concerned that the territorial nexus was based on a ‘tiny percentage’ of mortgages at issue
• suit between creditors and debtors’ lenders, although removed on the basis of “related-to” bankruptcy jurisdiction, were not subject to mandatory abstention, since, although the debtors were not parties, the action could have also been removed based on the Edge Act
• “It is well established that a district court can order a transfer sua sponte, provided that the court gives notice to the parties of its intention to do so in order that the parties may respond (quotation marks and alterations omitted”)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).