Temple City Bankruptcy Attorney

Preemption
Bankruptcy | Case Law | Preemption

PREEMPTION

In re Applebaum, 422 B.R. 684 (9th Cir. BAP 2009)

California’s bankruptcy-only exemption statute is not preempted by the Bankruptcy Code

and does not violate the Uniformity Clause.

In re Chaussee, 399 F.3d 225 (9th Cir. BAP 2008)

The act of filing a proof of claim in a bankruptcy case may not, alone, subject the claimant

to liability for violation of state and federal fair debt collection laws.

In re Tippett, 542 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2008)

The bankruptcy code does not preempt Cal. Civil Code § 1214, which renders an

unrecorded conveyance void as to bona fide purchasers. The transfer of the debtor’s property to

the bankruptcy estate upon filing their chapter 7 case was such a transfer. Thus the debtors’

unauthorized transfer of their home to a bona fide purchaser was covered by this statute.

In re Miles, 430 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2005)

Bankruptcy court had “arising under” jurisdiction over state law tort suits removed

removed from state court, since such actions were totally preempted by § 303(i). Furthermore,

siblings of debtors had no standing to bring an action under § 303(i).

40235 Washington St. Corp. v. Lusardi, 329 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 983,

124 S.Ct. 469 (2003)

Section 362 preempts Cal. Rev. & Tax. Code § 3728. “Under the doctrine of “conflict

preemption,” preemption is implied where ‘compliance with both federal and state regulation is

physically impossible.’”

MSR Exploration, Ltd. v. Meridian Oil, Inc., 74 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 1996)

debtor’s malicious prosecution action alleging defendants maliciously filed and pursued

creditors’ claims in it bankruptcy proceeding was preempted, and thus the district court properly

determined that it lacked jurisdiction

In re Baker & Drake, Inc., 35 F.3d 1348 (9th Cir. 1994)

Nevada tax laws not preempted by bankruptcy act.

In re Cybernetic Services, Inc., 252 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1130 (2002)

The recording provisions in the Patent Act do not preempt the recording provisions of

Article 9 of the UCC.

239