HIGH SOCIETY MANAGEMENT LLC v. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY (2026)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING

IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR REMAND

To resolve the pending motion to remand this proceeding back to the state court from which it was removed, the Court must determine whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334. The claims in the underlying state court case neither “arise under title 11” nor “arise in” the bankruptcy case that allegedly justified removal, and they are not “related to” that bankruptcy case within the meaning of § 1334. Therefore, the motion to remand will be granted.

Procedural Background

On September 8, 2025, Ryan Staszko filed a Notice of Removal in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, which was assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-24090-CMA (the “District Court”).¹ The Notice of Removal removed to the District Court a state court case pending in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Case No. 2023-015515-CA-01 (the “State Court Case”). The State Court Case was filed by Michael Weisser and High Society Management, LLC (together, the “Plaintiffs”) against several defendants, including Mr. Staszko and Pro Airways, LLC (“Pro Airways”). Removal was premised on Pro Airways’ chapter 7 bankruptcy case no. 25-11515 (the “Pro Airways Bankruptcy Case”), presently pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts (the “Mass. Bankruptcy Court”).

The case remained in the District Court until Chief Judge Altonaga entered an Order of Reference on October 21, 2025, resulting in the opening of this adversary proceeding. Thereafter, on January 8, 2026, this Court held a status conference in this adversary proceeding. At the status conference, the Court learned that the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand or Alternatively for Mandatory or Permissive Abstention and Incorporated Memorandum of Law and for Costs and Expenses Incurred Pursuing Remand [DE# 5]² (the “Motion for Remand”) had been filed while the case was pending in the District Court.

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and counsel for Mr. Staszko appeared at the January 8th status conference. The Court heard argument in support of and in opposition to the Motion for Remand and took the matter under advisement. Following the status conference, the Court reviewed the Motion for Remand, including (i) the September 4, 2025 Transcript of Telephonic Hearing from the Pro Airways Bankruptcy Case, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A to the Motion for Remand (the “Mass. Transcript”); and (ii) the September 10, 2025 Order Denying High Society Management, LLC's Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay entered in the Mass. Bankruptcy Case, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B to the Motion for Remand (the “Mass. Order”). The Court also reviewed Mr. Staszko's Opposition to [the Motion for Remand] [DE# 6] (the “Response”), the Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of [the Motion for Remand] [DE# 7], and applicable law.

In the Motion for Remand, the Plaintiffs request that the Court remand this proceeding back to the Florida state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(c)(2), 1447, and 1452(b) or, alternatively, grant mandatory or permissive abstention pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(c)(1) or (c)(2), and award attorneys’ fees and costs incurred pursuing remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). While no motion to transfer venue is pending,³ Mr. Staszko opposes the Motion for Remand and, if it is denied, he intends to seek the transfer of this proceeding to the Mass. Bankruptcy Court to be considered as part of the Pro Airways Bankruptcy Case.

Relevant Facts

On April 12, 2025, after a jury trial in the State Court Case, the Florida state court entered a Partial Final Judgment against Pro Airways in the amount of $204,135.45 for conversion, civil theft, violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and breach of contract and against Mr. Staszko in the amount of $77,308.30 for breach of fiduciary duty and constructive fraud. A copy of the Partial Final Judgment is located on this Court's docket at DE# 2-17 at PDF pgs. 540-43. Thereafter, on May 11, 2025, the Florida state court entered an order granting entitlement of attorneys’ fees against Pro Airways and costs against Pro Airways and Mr. Staszko, with liquidation of the amount of fees and costs to be determined at a subsequent evidentiary hearing. A copy of the Florida state court's Order on Plaintiff's Motion for Entitlement to Attorney's Fees and Costs is located on this Court's docket at DE# 2-18 at PDF pgs. 1-3.

On July 23, 2025, prior to the liquidation of fees and costs against Pro Airways and costs against Mr. Staszko in the State Court Case, Pro Airways commenced the Pro Airways Bankruptcy Case in the Mass. Bankruptcy Court. The Plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay in the Pro Airways Bankruptcy Court, seeking stay relief to liquidate the fees and costs against Pro Airways in the State Court Case. At the hearing on the Plaintiffs’ stay relief motion, the Mass. Bankruptcy Court stated, “If there is joint and several liability on costs, then the Florida court can determine them as to the individual defendant, but not the corporate defendant, not the debtor.” Mass. Transcript at 8:10-12, DE# 5 at Exh. A. The Mass. Bankruptcy Court then entered the Mass. Order, which denied the Plaintiff's request for stay relief and provides as follows: “[T]he Trustee having stated on the record at the hearing that he has no objection to the entry of a separate and final judgment against any party to the Florida Litigation other than the Debtor (with any such judgment having no preclusive effect on the Trustee, the Debtor, or the Debtor's estate).” Mass. Order, DE# 5 at Exh. B.

Mr. Staszko then removed the State Court Case to the District Court, asserting bankruptcy “related to” jurisdiction and indicating an intent to seek transfer of the State Court Case to the Mass. Bankruptcy Court, where the Pro Airways Bankruptcy Case is pending.

Discussion

Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1452 is proper only if the federal court has jurisdiction under the bankruptcy jurisdiction provisions in 28 U.S.C. § 1334. Section 1334(b) grants jurisdiction over ‘‘all civil proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11.’’ (emphasis added). Here, without dispute, the issues in the State Court Case did not arise under title 11 nor did they arise in the Pro Airways Bankruptcy Case. Therefore, subject matter jurisdiction exists, if at all, under the ‘‘related to’’ jurisdictional grant.

Mr. Staszko argues that the State Court Case is “related to” the Pro Airways Bankruptcy Case, as that phrase is used in 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and, therefore, there is a jurisdictional basis for removal. The Court disagrees. The remaining dispute sought to be litigated against Mr. Staszko in the State Court Case is the liquidation of costs after judgment as to a non-debtor defendant. In this Circuit, a proceeding is “related to” a bankruptcy case only if its outcome could conceivably have an effect on the bankruptcy estate being administered. In re Lemco Gypsum, Inc., 910 F.2d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 1990) (adopting Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984, 994 (3rd Cir. 1984)); see Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300, 308 n.6 (1995) (recognizing the same test). On this record, liquidation of costs against Mr. Staszko will not determine the Plaintiffs’ claim against Pro Airways and, therefore, will have no effect on the administration of Pro Airways’ bankruptcy estate.

The Mass. Bankruptcy Court has already made that point clear. The Mass. Transcript states that, if there is joint and several liability on costs, “the Florida court can determine them as to the individual defendant, but not the corporate defendant, not the debtor.” Mass. Transcript at 8:10-12, DE# 5 at Exh. A. And the Mass. Order expressly permits entry of a separate final judgment against non-debtor parties, while providing that any such judgment has “no preclusive effect on the Trustee, the Debtor, or the Debtor's estate.” Mass. Order, DE# 5 at Exh. B. Those statements confirm that the Plaintiffs may liquidate costs against Mr. Staszko in State Court Case and, separately, liquidate fees and costs against Pro Airways in the Pro Airways Bankruptcy Case.

To be sure, one forum might be more convenient. But convenience does not create subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts must have jurisdiction as conferred by statute, and it cannot be supplied by efficiency concerns or litigation preference. See Lemco Gypsum, 910 F.2d at 788-89.

For these reasons, the Court concludes that removal was improper and remand is required. Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the Court finds no need to address the additional arguments raised in support of remand. The Court notes, however, that if there was related to jurisdiction, this matter would likely be subject to mandatory abstention and permissive abstention under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1) and (2), as well as equitable remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b).

Finally, the Plaintiffs request attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “An order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Such an award is appropriate when “the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). The Court finds that there was a “reasonable basis” for seeking removal. Therefore, the Court is denying the Plaintiffs request for fees and costs incurred in prosecuting the Motion for Remand.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. The Motion for Remand is granted in part and denied in part as provided herein.

2. The Plaintiffs’ request for remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1447(c) and 1452(b) is granted.

3. The Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) is denied.

4. Upon finality of this Order, the Clerk shall close this adversary proceeding and transmit the record to the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida to become part of the record in the civil action captioned High Society Management, LLC et al. v. American Express Company et al., Case No. 2023-015515-CA-01.

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on March 2, 2026.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Notice of Removal should have been filed in the bankruptcy court, not in the district court. As authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), the District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered a General Order of Reference on March 27, 2012. Pursuant to that Order and the District Court's Local Rule 87.2(a), all bankruptcy matters are automatically referred to the bankruptcy court. That rule also specifically provides that “[t]he Order of Reference also applies to notices of removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a), which shall be filed with the Clerk of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Division of the District where such civil action is proceeding.”

2.   The entire District Court docket was transferred to this Court on October 25, 2025, and the Motion for Remand and Response (defined herein) were contained in District Court docket at DE# 2-21 and 2-22. The Court extracted these documents and had them separately docketed in this proceeding at DE#’s 5 and 6. The Reply (also defined herein) had not been filed as of the District Court's transfer, so the Reply was not included in the transferred documents. The Court pulled the Reply from the District Court's docket and also had it separately docketed in this proceeding at DE# 7.

3.   On September 22, 2025, the District Court entered an Order providing that Mr. Staszko “shall not file a motion to transfer the case until the Court has resolved any motion to remand – and hence the question of its subject matter jurisdiction ․” A copy of this Order is on the Court's docket at DE# 2-20.

Robert A. Mark, Judge