The statutory bankruptcy abstention regime that supplements the judge-made abstention doctrines: a discretionary twelve-factor permissive test and a categorical six-element mandatory rule.
(c)(1) Except with respect to a case under chapter 15 of title 11, nothing in this section prevents a district court in the interest of justice, or in the interest of comity with State courts or respect for State law, from abstaining from hearing a particular proceeding arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11.
(2) 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. Section 1334(c).
Section 1334(c) creates two distinct abstention regimes operating side by side:
The two regimes are not mutually exclusive; mandatory abstention applies only to the narrower non-core "related to" category, while permissive abstention may apply to any proceeding within Section 1334's jurisdictional reach.
The seminal six-element formulation traces to Carr v. Mid-America Plaza Hotel and parallel decisions across the circuits. A federal court must abstain when all six elements are present:
The mandatory abstention regime requires a party motion; the court does not abstain sua sponte under Section 1334(c)(2). Local rules and case law generally require the motion to be filed early in the proceeding - often within the time to respond to the complaint, or within a period set by scheduling order. Delay beyond the time when adjudication has substantially advanced can constitute waiver.
The proceeding must be based on a state-law claim, not a federal claim. A federal claim - including a federal statutory claim, a federal-common-law claim, or an avoidance action grounded in federal bankruptcy statute - is outside the mandatory abstention regime. Mixed proceedings raising both state and federal claims trigger analysis claim by claim.
The proceeding must be "related to" the bankruptcy case but not "arising under" Title 11 or "arising in" the bankruptcy case. The threshold question is whether the proceeding falls within the core/non-core distinction of 28 U.S.C. Section 157(b)-(c). A "core" proceeding - one arising under Title 11 or arising in the bankruptcy case - is categorically outside the mandatory regime even if it sounds in state law. The dividing line is fact-intensive; courts examine whether the cause of action would exist outside bankruptcy and whether it is integral to the administration of the estate.
The action would not have been removable to or independently filed in federal court absent the bankruptcy jurisdictional grant. If diversity jurisdiction or federal-question jurisdiction would support the action independent of the bankruptcy, mandatory abstention does not apply. The element exists because Congress created the bankruptcy "related to" jurisdiction to facilitate orderly estate administration, not to expand federal jurisdiction over state-law disputes generally.
A parallel action must have been commenced in state court. Mandatory abstention is not available where the state court has no pending action to which the bankruptcy court can defer. If no state action exists, the parties may need to file one before the federal court will mandatorily abstain - though some courts have addressed the element flexibly where state-court filing is imminent or where the parties stipulate to filing.
The state court must be able to adjudicate the matter timely - a phrase that does not mean immediately but means within a time frame consistent with the orderly administration of the bankruptcy case. Courts examine state-court calendars, the complexity of the dispute, and whether state-court adjudication would unduly delay distribution to creditors or other bankruptcy milestones. The element is fact-specific; the bankruptcy court typically takes judicial notice of the relevant state-court conditions and may request information from the parties.
The mandatory regime is binary. If all six elements are present, the court must abstain. If any element is absent, mandatory abstention is unavailable - though the permissive regime under Section 1334(c)(1) remains available as an independent ground.
The permissive regime invokes a multifactor common-law test that has consolidated, with circuit-by-circuit variation, around a roughly twelve-factor list. The factors are weighed in the bankruptcy court's discretion; no single factor is dispositive and no defined number is required. The standard list:
Mandatory abstention is narrower but more powerful. Where its six elements are satisfied the court must abstain regardless of bankruptcy-administration considerations. Permissive abstention applies more broadly but yields only after weighed discretion. Practitioners typically argue both, with mandatory abstention as the primary ground and permissive abstention as a fallback.
Section 1334(c) operates in parallel with Burford, Younger, Pullman, and Colorado River. The statutory regime is generally the preferred route in bankruptcy because Congress specifically directed it to bankruptcy proceedings and gave bankruptcy courts the institutional competence to apply it. Judge-made abstention remains available where statutory abstention does not fit.
Section 1334(c) abstention is implemented in the bankruptcy court through motion practice. The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure do not specify a dedicated rule, but the motion is typically captioned as a motion to abstain under 28 U.S.C. Section 1334(c) and is governed by Bankruptcy Rule 9014 for contested matters. The motion should:
28 U.S.C. Section 1334(d) provides that a decision to abstain under subsection (c)(2) or a decision not to abstain in connection with such a proceeding "is not reviewable by appeal or otherwise" by the court of appeals - though decisions to abstain remain reviewable by the district court (in cases where the bankruptcy court issued the order). The reviewability limitation is a significant procedural feature; a party concerned about preserving appellate review of a Section 1334(c)(2) decision should raise the issue at every available level. Permissive-abstention decisions under Section 1334(c)(1) are reviewable for abuse of discretion under the ordinary appellate framework.
Last modified: 2026-05-22. This page provides general information about 28 U.S.C. Section 1334 abstention. It does not constitute legal advice. Whether mandatory or permissive abstention applies to a specific bankruptcy proceeding should be evaluated by qualified counsel.