Thong v. MEHRALIAN

1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
______________________________________________________________________________
In re: 	Case No. 26-30706
Ali Mehralian, 	Chapter 7
Debtor.
___________________________________
Dinh Thong,
Adv. Proc. No. 26-03047
Plaintiff,
v.
Ali Mehralian,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER REMANDING ADVERSARY PROCEEDING
______________________________________________________________________________
On May 13, 2026, this adversary proceeding came before the Court for a hearing on the
Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. ECF No. 4. The Defendant filed a response. ECF No. 11. The
Defendant also filed an addendum. ECF No. 18. Appearances were made by the Defendant, pro
se, and by Hugh Alan Kantrud for the Plaintiff. On the record, the parties consented to entry of
final orders or judgment by the Court pursuant to Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 7008
and 7012. Thus, a report and recommendation is not necessary. In either case, the Court’s ultimate
decision to remand would apparently be reviewed de novo by the District Court. See Scherer v.
Carroll, 150 B.R. 549, 551 (D. Vt. 1993) (standard of review on appeal of abstention and remand);
In re Borchardt, 56 B.R. 791, 793 (D. Minn. 1986) (standard of review on report and
Case 26-03047 Doc 19 Filed 05/19/26 Entered 05/19/26 15:28:26 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 9

2
recommendation for abstention and remand).
At a previous hearing on April 29, 2026, the Court made preliminary observations about
the motion. However, the Defendant stated that he had never received the motion. Therefore, the
Court printed a copy, and the Defendant also confirmed on the record that he received that printed
copy of the Plaintiff’s motion to remand. The Court then entered an order allowing the Plaintiff to
file a response (which the Plaintiff did). ECF Nos. 6, 11, 18.
The Court has considered the motion, response, addendum, and the parties’ arguments at
the May 13 and April 29 hearings. For the reasons the Court shall state, the Court grants the motion
and remands this proceeding to the Ramsey County District Court.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The history of the parties’ litigation in state court is lengthy and mostly irrelevant for the
purposes of this motion, and the facts related to this motion are undisputed. The relevant factual
and procedural background is as follows.
The Plaintiff sold certain real property in St. Paul to the Defendant by contract for deed.
The Defendant allegedly failed to make required payments, at which point the Plaintiff allegedly
terminated the contract for deed and filed an unlawful detainer action in the Ramsey County
District Court. Several stops and starts transpired, including multiple bankruptcy filings by the
Defendant, one by the Plaintiff, and a dismissal of the original unlawful detainer action.
The parties’ most recent eviction proceeding went to trial and was taken under
advisement by the state court in late February 2026. Then, on March 6, the Defendant filed a
Chapter 7 petition in this Court. Bk. Case No. 26-30706, ECF No. 1. On March 23, the
Defendant filed a Notice of Removal purporting to remove the eviction proceeding to this Court.
ECF No. 1. The Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand followed. ECF No. 4.
Case 26-03047 Doc 19 Filed 05/19/26 Entered 05/19/26 15:28:26 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 9

3
The Plaintiff offers several reasons why remand is appropriate: there is no federal interest
at issue; this is purely a matter of state law; the outcome will not affect the administration of the
estate; the Defendant’s intent is to hinder and delay the eviction; and relitigating a case that has
been tried and taken under advisement “would be a horrific waste of the court’s time and an
unfair and unreasonable burden on [the Plaintiff].” ECF No. 4-1 at 9. Alternatively, the Plaintiff
argues that, for many of the same reasons, both permissive and mandatory abstention under
Section 1334(c)(1)–(2) apply to this matter. ECF No. 4-1 at 10–13; 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1)–(2).
The Defendant responds that federal law is involved because: eviction would be a taking
under the Fifth Amendment; both the state court and the Plaintiff have violated the Defendants’
due process rights; and the Plaintiff and others have violated bankruptcy law. ECF No. 11 at 2–4.
The Defendant alleges that the state court judge never read the Defendant’s motions, abused his
power, and violated both state and federal law. ECF No. 11 at 4–6. The Defendant argues that
remand will allow these alleged violations to continue. ECF No. 11 at 6–7. Alternatively, the
Defendant argues abstention is inappropriate because this proceeding involves no sensitive state
matters and does not require specialized handling. ECF No. 11 at 10.
The Court notes that the Defendant has filed for bankruptcy 13 times in this district. See
Bk. Case No. 26-30706, Docket Entry dated March 9, 2026 (listing prior filings). The Defendant
has also been barred from filing on at least three occasions. See Bk. Case No. 21-40898 (Judge
Sanberg), ECF No. 25 (barring filing from June 24, 2021, until June 24, 2022); Bk. Case No. 22-
41643 (Judge Fisher), ECF No. 57 (barring filing from November 3, 2022, until January 1,
2024); Bk. Case No. 25-40540 (Judge Fisher), ECF No. 56 (barring filing from May 27, 2025,
until March 2, 2026). The Defendant’s current case was filed four days after the most recent bar
expired.
Case 26-03047 Doc 19 Filed 05/19/26 Entered 05/19/26 15:28:26 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 9

4
DISCUSSION
The Plaintiff asks the Court to abstain from hearing this adversary proceeding and to
remand this proceeding to the state court. The Court will assume for the purposes of this motion
that the proceeding was properly removed to this Court. However, there are at least two reasons
to doubt whether the removal was proper. First, this proceeding was removed to this Court under
Section 1452(a), which provides for removal to the district court, not the bankruptcy court. In re
Borchardt, 56 B.R. 791, 792 (D. Minn. 1986); 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a). Second, the Defendant may
have failed to file the notice of removal in the state court, which is required for the removal to be
effective. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027(b)–(c). But, whether or not the removal was proper, this
proceeding should continue in state court.
I. 	The Court Remands This Proceeding To The Ramsey County District Court
Courts in the Eighth Circuit have generally concluded that:
The analysis used to determine whether equitable remand under § 1452(b) is
appropriate is virtually identical to the permissive abstention analysis [under
§ 1334(c)(1)], with the consideration of four additional factors:
(1) whether remand serves principles of judicial economy;
(2) whether there is prejudice to unremoved parties;
(3) whether the remand lessens the possibilities of inconsistent results; and
(4) whether the court where the action originated has greater expertise.
In re Sears, 539 B.R. 368, 371–72 (D. Neb. 2015); see also In re Burrow, 505 B.R. 838, 850
(Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2013); Frelin v. Oakwood Homes Corp., 292 B.R. 369, 383–84 (Bankr. E.D.
Ark. 2003).
The Court notes at the outset that these additional factors weigh in favor of remand. As
the Plaintiff points out, remand would serve principles of judicial economy because the state
court had taken this matter under advisement and was ready to rule. The state court where this
action originated also has greater expertise in unlawful detainer actions because such actions are
Case 26-03047 Doc 19 Filed 05/19/26 Entered 05/19/26 15:28:26 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 9

5
brought virtually exclusively in state court. The other two factors are neutral or inapplicable.
Therefore, these factors weigh in favor of remand.
The Court now turns to the permissive abstention factors. With respect to permissive
abstention under Section 1334(c)(1):
[C]ourts have developed a number of factors that may be considered in
determining whether abstention is appropriate. These include:
(1) the effect or lack thereof on the efficient administration of the estate if a Court
recommends abstention,
(2) the extent to which state law issues predominate over bankruptcy issues,
(3) the difficult or unsettled nature of the applicable law,
(4) the presence of a related proceeding commenced in state court or other
nonbankruptcy court,
(5) the jurisdictional basis, if any, other than 28 U.S.C. § 1334,
(6) the degree of relatedness or remoteness of the proceeding to the main
bankruptcy case,
(7) the substance rather than the form of an asserted ‘core’ proceeding,
(8) the feasibility of severing state law claims from core bankruptcy matters to
allow judgments to be entered in state court with enforcement left to the
bankruptcy court,
(9) the burden [on] the bankruptcy court's docket,
(10) the likelihood that the commencement of the proceeding involves forum
shopping by one of the parties,
(11) the existence of a right to a jury trial, and
(12) the presence in the proceeding of nondebtor parties.
In re Williams, 256 B.R. 885, 894 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2001).
The Court analyzes each as follows.
1. 	The effect or lack thereof on the efficient administration of the estate if a Court
recommends abstention.
This proceeding does not appear to involve property of the estate. Therefore, abstaining
would not prevent efficient administration of the estate. This factor weighs in favor of abstention.
2. 	The extent to which state law issues predominate over bankruptcy issues.
Contrary to the Defendant’s assertions, this proceeding involves purely state law issues.
The Defendant makes vague allegations regarding violations of bankruptcy law, but the only
Case 26-03047 Doc 19 Filed 05/19/26 Entered 05/19/26 15:28:26 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 9

6
specific allegation is that the state court judge (and others) violated the automatic stay. Those
allegations are being litigated in Adv. Proc. No. 26-03052—this proceeding is simply a removed
eviction action.
The other alleged federal issues raised by the Defendant not only are not bankruptcy
issues, but the Plaintiff also is not a governmental actor, so eviction would not effectuate a
taking. See Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 617 (2001). Nor does the Defendant explain
how an eviction would be “for public use.” Id. Similarly, allegations that the state court is not
reading the Defendant’s motions, is violating due process rights, and is otherwise acting
improperly may be raised on appeal—not on removal to this Court. This factor weighs in favor
of abstention.
3. 	The difficult or unsettled nature of the applicable law.
The Court is not in a position to determine whether the applicable law is difficult or
unsettled because the Court has no expertise in eviction proceedings. This factor is neutral.
4. 	The presence of a related proceeding commenced in state court or other nonbankruptcy
court.
This proceeding was removed from the state court where the state court had conducted a
trial, had taken the matter under advisement, and was ready to issue its ruling. This factor weighs
strongly in favor of abstention.
5. 	The jurisdictional basis, if any, other than 28 U.S.C. § 1334.
There does not appear to be any jurisdictional basis other than Section 1334. Both parties
are citizens of Minnesota (there is no allegation that either is not), and the issues are governed by
state law. This factor weighs in favor of abstention.
Case 26-03047 Doc 19 Filed 05/19/26 Entered 05/19/26 15:28:26 Desc Main
Document Page 6 of 9

7
6. 	The degree of relatedness or remoteness of the proceeding to the main bankruptcy case.
This proceeding is only remotely related to the main bankruptcy case because it does not
appear to involve estate property, the allowance of claims, or any other proceedings within the
main bankruptcy case. This factor weighs in favor of abstention.
7. 	The substance rather than the form of an asserted ‘core’ proceeding.
The notice of removal states this is a core proceeding, but this eviction proceeding is not
one of the core proceedings listed in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). This factor weighs in favor of
abstention.
8. 	The feasibility of severing state law claims from core bankruptcy matters to allow
judgments to be entered in state court with enforcement left to the bankruptcy court.
There are no core bankruptcy matters to be severed from state law claims because this
proceeding consists entirely of state law claims. This factor weighs in favor of abstention.
9. 	The burden on the bankruptcy court's docket.
Hearing this case would not burden the bankruptcy court’s docket. But, a precedent that
removal of eviction or foreclosure cases is proper might result in numerous removals. This factor
weighs in favor of abstention.
10. The likelihood that the commencement of the proceeding involves forum shopping by
one of the parties.
This removal may have involved forum shopping because much of the Defendant’s brief
focuses on the state court’s allegedly biased and inappropriate treatment of the Defendant. The
Defendant explicitly opposes remand on the ground that returning to state court would subject
the Defendant to more allegedly wrongful treatment. In other words, the Defendant opposes
remand because he wishes to have the proceeding heard in this forum rather than in state court.
However, an appeal is the proper route for addressing such concerns. This factor weights in favor
of abstention.
Case 26-03047 Doc 19 Filed 05/19/26 Entered 05/19/26 15:28:26 Desc Main
Document Page 7 of 9

8
11. The existence of a right to a jury trial.
Under Minn. Stat. § 504B.335(b), either party may demand a right to a jury trial in an
unlawful detainer action. This Court can only conduct jury trials with the consent of all parties.
In theory, any party could force this proceeding to be transferred to yet another court, but the fact
remains that the trial has already occurred in state court. This factor weighs in favor of
abstention.
12. The presence in the proceeding of nondebtor parties.
One of the two parties in this proceeding is a nondebtor. This factor is neutral.
To summarize, twelve of the sixteen factors to be considered weigh in favor of remand to
the state court, four are neutral, and no factors weigh against remand. Therefore, the Court will
grant the motion to remand.
II. Even If The Court Did Not Remand, The Court Must Abstain.
Even if the Court did not remand this proceeding, the Court would abstain under Section
1334(c)(1) as discussed above. The Court also would have to abstain under Section 1334(c)(2).
Section 1334(c)(2) provides that:
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.
28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2). There does not appear to be any federal, non-bankruptcy jurisdiction
over this proceeding. There is no diversity jurisdiction, as both parties are residents of
Minnesota. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. There is no federal question jurisdiction because this
proceeding also does not “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
28 U.S.C. § 1331. This matter also certainly can be timely adjudicated in the state forum that had
Case 26-03047 Doc 19 Filed 05/19/26 Entered 05/19/26 15:28:26 Desc Main
Document Page 8 of 9

9
taken this matter under advisement prior to the removal. Therefore, the Court is required to
abstain and, thus, remands this proceeding to the state court. See Nhut Le v. Wells Fargo Bank,
NA, No. CIV. 13-1920 SRN/JJK, 2014 WL 1672260, at *4–5 (D. Minn. Mar. 17, 2014), report
and recommendation adopted sub nom. Nhut Le v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 13-CV-1920
SRN/JJK, 2014 WL 1672353 (D. Minn. Apr. 28, 2014), aff'd on other grounds, 595 F. App'x 661
(8th Cir. 2015) (remanding to the state court an eviction proceeding removed under Section
1452).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, the Court remands this adversary proceeding to the
Ramsey County District Court. Even if remand were inappropriate, the Court must abstain.
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED:
This adversary proceeding is remanded to the Ramsey County District Court.
Dated: 	_______________________________
William J. Fisher
United States Bankruptcy Judge
s/ William J. FisherMay 19, 2026
Case 26-03047 Doc 19 Filed 05/19/26 Entered 05/19/26 15:28:26 Desc Main
Document Page 9 of 9