Blackstone Claim Services, Inc. v. Aaron McKee

Summary

This is an order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas granting in part and denying in part Blackstone Claim Services, Inc.'s Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Aaron McKee's counterclaims. The court held that it had jurisdiction over McKee's claims against Blackstone and that those claims adequately alleged standing and plausible grounds for relief at the pleading stage. The court dismissed McKee's third-party claims against Gary H. Pennington for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Holdings

1. The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over McKee's section 523 claims under its arising-under jurisdiction and over his state-law counterclaims under related-to jurisdiction because those claims could conceivably affect administration of Blackstone's bankruptcy estate.
2. The bankruptcy court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over McKee's purely state-law third-party claims against Pennington and dismissed those claims with prejudice.
3. McKee adequately pleaded injury in fact, traceability, and redressability for his counterclaims against Blackstone, so the counterclaims were not subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1).
4. Neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel barred McKee's counterclaims against Blackstone.
5. McKee adequately pleaded a DTPA claim under Texas Business and Commerce Code section 17.46(b)(5), but failed to state claims under subsections (b)(7), (b)(12), and (b)(24); those deficient claims were dismissed with prejudice.
6. McKee adequately pleaded negligence and negligence per se based on alleged violations of Texas Insurance Code sections 4102.102 and 4102.159.
7. McKee adequately pleaded a breach-of-contract claim against Blackstone despite not expressly pleading his own performance because he alleged that Blackstone materially breached first, excusing his further performance.
8. McKee adequately pleaded nondischargeability under section 523(a)(2)(A) for the surviving DTPA section 17.46(b)(5) claim, but not for the negligence or breach-of-contract claims.
9. McKee adequately pleaded nondischargeability under section 523(a)(6) for the surviving DTPA claim and the breach-of-contract claim, but not for negligence.
10. The court denied McKee's request to amend the dismissed claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the bankruptcy court had subject-matter jurisdiction over McKee's counterclaims against Blackstone and third-party claims against Pennington.
2. Whether McKee had Article III standing to assert his counterclaims against Blackstone.
3. Whether McKee's counterclaims were barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel based on his settlement and dismissal with prejudice of the Chubb litigation.
4. Whether McKee adequately pleaded DTPA claims under Texas Business and Commerce Code section 17.46(b)(5), (7), (12), and (24).
5. Whether McKee adequately pleaded negligence, negligence per se, and breach of contract.
6. Whether McKee adequately pleaded that the alleged debts were nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. sections 523(a)(2)(A) and 523(a)(6).
7. Whether McKee should receive leave to amend deficient claims.

Disposition

other