the action, and the defendants were not debtors or creditors.” In re DVI, Inc., 305 B.R. 414, 417 (Bankr.D.Del.2004) (discussing New Horizon of N.Y. LLC v. Jacobs, 231 F.3d 143 (4th Cir.2000). 54 . Def. Mem. at 9. 55 . 236 F.3d 117, 120-21 (2d Cir.2001). 56 . 74 F.3d 910, 913-16 (9th Cir.1996). The court "recognize[d] that preemption assertions are normally matters of defense and will not suffice to establish federal jurisdiction” but noted that the “complete preemption doctrine is often an exception to that rule.” Id. at 912 (citing Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392-93, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987). 57 . BGC acknowledges that "concealing assets and stealing from the bankruptcy estate (as well as from BGC, 2 U.S. 470, 470, 118 S.Ct. 921, 139 L.Ed.2d 912 (1998) (<HOLDING>). 61 . Parmalat I, 639 F.3d at 579. 62 . See,
holding that after removal of diversity case to federal court the federal court may grant summary judgment notwithstanding earlier denial of summary judgment motion by state court holding that a federal court litigant who is forced into state court under pullman may reserve a right to return to federal court in that the plaintiff can preserve the right to the federal forum for federal claims by informing the state court of his or her intention to return following litigation of the state claims in the state court holding that a state habeas proceeding decided on the merits precluded a section 1983 action in federal court holding that just because a claim implicates a federal issue or involves construction of federal law does not necessarily give rise to a federal question and confer removal jurisdiction on a federal court holding that removal was improper where a plaintiffs state cause of action was precluded by a prior federal judgment on a federal question because that is a defensive plea properly made in state court