Robbins v. Martin Law Firm, P.L.

Plaintiff cited a non-existent M.D. Fla. decision as Baker v. BDO Seidman, LLP; court notes plaintiff conceded the citation was incorrect and the real case was a non-binding N.D. Cal. decision not involving bankruptcy.

Plaintiff attributed a sentence about remand promoting judicial economy and discouraging forum shopping to Republic Reader’s; the court found the quotation does not exist in the opinion.

Plaintiff quoted Eastus as requiring courts to weigh in favor of remand in non-core state law proceedings; the court found the quotation does not exist and noted Eastus did not involve bankruptcy.

Plaintiff cited Kircher for the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction on the removing party; the court explained Kircher addressed appellate review of remand orders and footnote 12 was unrelated.

Plaintiff asserted Hirsch reaffirmed that malpractice and fiduciary duty claims are generally non-core and belong in state court; the court noted plaintiff conceded this was inaccurate, with only state-law application being similar.