PATRICIA C. WILLIAMS, United States Bankruptcy Judge
THIS MATTER came on for hearing before the Honorable Patricia C. Williams on May 7, 2002 upon S.L.S. Management, Inc.'s Motion for Order for Remand to Spokane County Superior Court. (Docket No. 9). The following individuals were present at the hearing:
Attorneys: Representing:
Lynne Buchanan S.L.S. Management, Duncan McNeil Pro se Defendant Carlos Valero Broadway Buildings Jay Jump Interested Party Michael Sullivan S.L.S. Management, Thomas Wilkening Interest Party David Willems Process Server
The court reviewed the files and records herein, heard argument of the parties, and was fully advised in the premises. The court now enters its Memorandum Decision.
This unlawful detainer action was filed by Stanley and Michael Sullivan as owners of S.L.S. Management, Inc. against several entities including Mr. Duncan J. McNeil on February 27, 2002. The matter was removed from state court on March 7, 2002. It is unknown whether an answer was filed while the case was pending before the Superior Court, however, Mr. McNeil filed an answer in this court on March 21, 2002. On March 26, 2002, the plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand the proceeding to Superior Court.
A removed action can be remanded under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) (2001) on "any equitable grounds." The following cases have identified various factors to be addressed in considering the issue of remand: Billington v. Winograde (In re Hotel Mt. Lassen), 207 B.R. 935 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1997); In re Tucson Estates, Inc., 912 F.2d 1162 (9th Cir. 1990); Williams v. Shell Oil Co., 169 B.R. 684 (S.D. Cal. 1994); and Schulman v. California (In re Lazar), 237 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 2001).
A major element in determining if remand is appropriate is the potential impact of the removed action upon the bankruptcy estate. Here, there is no pending bankruptcy estate. On February 21, 2002, Mr. McNeil's first Chapter 11 proceeding (01-06073-W11) was dismissed pursuant to the court's Memorandum Decision dated February 21, 2002. In that decision, Mr. McNeil was precluded from commencing any bankruptcy proceeding in this District without first obtaining prior permission of the Bankruptcy Court in the Central District of California or this bankruptcy Court. Mr. McNeil filed a second Chapter 11 petition (02-01731-W11) on March 1, 2002. It was subsequently dismissed on March 5, 2002 for failure to comply with the prior order. This proceeding was removed to the Bankruptcy Court on March 7, 2002. Neither now nor at the time this proceeding was removed has there been any bankruptcy proceeding which could be effected by the outcome of this case or to which this adversary proceeding could relate. This heavily weighs in favor of remanding the case to state court.
Application of other remand factors also indicates that remand is appropriate. There are primarily only state law issues involved and those state law issues are well settled principles of law. Despite various Title 11 Code sections being listed in the caption of the Answer, the only federal cause of action attempted to be pled in the counterclaim is a violation of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362. Although state courts are without jurisdiction to modify, lift or annul the automatic stay, both state and federal courts have jurisdiction to determine the applicability of and adjudicate claims for violation of the automatic stay. 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b); 11 U.S.C. § 362. McGhan v. Rutz (In re McGhan) 288 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2002). In addition, the defendant has demanded a jury trial which is more appropriately conducted in state court. Lastly, the record seems to indicate that the removal of this and two prior unlawful detainer actions involving the same parties is either an effort in forum shopping or some sort of bad faith delay tactic on the part of Mr. McNeil.
Remand as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) (2001) is appropriate in this case. The case is REMANDED to the State of Washington, Spokane County Superior Court.