GERALD FINES, Chief Judge
This matter having come before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Abstention and Remand, and Debtor's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Abstention and Remand; the Court, having heard arguments of counsel, reviewed the record of the instant adversary proceeding, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 7052 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
Findings of Fact
The material facts in this matter are not in dispute and are, in pertinent part, as follows:
1. Mercantile National Bank of Indiana, as Trustee, J.R. Construction Co. and Joseph Ramacci (Mercantile) is the plaintiff in Newton Superior Court Cause No. 56D01-0911-PL-9, severed from Newton Superior Court Cause No. 56D01-9512-CP-044, which alleges claims under Indiana's Crime Victims' Compensation Act (CVCA), Ind. Code § 34-24-3-1, against Robert Underwood (Underwood) (the State Court CVCA Suit).
2. The State Court CVCA Suit alleges that Underwood fraudulently transferred assets to evade a state court judgment in favor of Mercantile and seeks a remedy under the CVCA, allowed for victims of certain property crimes, including fraud in violation of Ind. Code § 35-43-5-4-(8).
3. The state court issued an order in the State Court CVCA Suit on October 14, 2009, that the CVCA claims be assigned a new cause number and proceed accordingly. The cause number, 56D01-0911-PL-9, was assigned on November 17, 2009.
4. The adversary complaint in this case makes identical allegations against James E. Rose (Rose), the debtor herein. The State Court CVCA Suit and the adversary complaint arise from identical questions of law and fact relating to a transfer of the assets of a judgment debtor corporation of which Rose and Underwood were the sole shareholders.
5. Mercantile seeks abstention by this Court and remand to the Newton Superior Court for adjudication of the state law CVCA claims against both Rose and Underwood.
Conclusions of Law
Title 28, United States Code, § 1334(c)(2) states:
(2) Upon timely motion of a party in a proceeding based upon a State law claim or State law cause of action, related to a case under title 11 but not arising under title 11 or arising in a case under title 11, with respect to which an action could not have been commenced in a court of the United States absent jurisdiction under this section, the district court shall abstain from hearing such proceeding if an action is commenced, and can be timely adjudicated, in a state forum of appropriate jurisdiction.
In applying § 1334(c)(2) to the undisputed facts in the instant adversary, this Court finds that it must abstain from hearing the instant adversary proceeding as it now exists.
This Court finds that the Motion filed in the instant adversary proceeding was timely, based upon the procedural history of this adversary. The Court further finds that the claim in this matter is purely based upon Indiana State law, and, although it is related to the underlying Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding, it is not a core proceeding. Finally, this Court finds that the instant State law action could not have been brought in this Court absent the filing of Debtor's pending Chapter 11 petition. As a result, this Court must abstain from this proceeding and defer to the Indiana State Court jurisdiction.