Buffets, Inc., et al. v. BMO Harris Bank, et al., No. 12-2804 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseBuffets filed suit against U.S. Bank and BMO Harris Bank alleging, among other things, violations of the Uniform Fiduciaries Act (UFA), Minn. Stat. 520.01 et seq. The district court asserted jurisdiction on the ground that the action was related to a Title 11 bankruptcy proceeding, 28 U.S.C. 1334(b), and that abstention in favor of state-court litigation was not required under 28 U.S.C. 1334(c)(2). The court concluded that, although the question of "related to bankruptcy" jurisdiction was difficult and close, the answer ultimately did not affect the court's jurisdiction. Even if the district court lacked "related to" bankruptcy jurisdiction - because the banks could not pursue indemnification claims against LGI - the court had jurisdiction over the appeal under the rationale of Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis. On the merits, the court concluded that Buffets has not established a genuine dispute as to whether either bank was indifferent to LGI's suspicious activity, such that its actions amounted to bad faith. Accordingly, the court affirmed the the district court's grant of summary judgment to the banks.
Court Description: Civil case - Uniform Fiduciaries Act. On the issue of jurisdiction, if the district court had "related to" bankruptcy jurisdiction, it did not abuse its discretion in refusing to abstain, and if the court lacked "related to" bankruptcy jurisdiction, then diversity of citizenship is a sufficient basis for this court to address the appeal; the district court did not err in granting the defendant banks' motions for summary judgment on plaintiff's claims under the Uniform Fiduciaries Act.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.