Debtor filed an adversary proceeding against defendant, and defendant filed a motion for abstention, which debtor opposed. The court described the adversary proceeding, in which the parties' claims were essentially identical to ones they had asserted in a prepetition state court action, as a "garden-variety notes receivable action" based entirely on state law, and concluded that such actions were not core bankruptcy proceedings. Finding that all of the requisites of abstention under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2) had been satisfied, the court indicated that it believed abstention to be mandatory. Alternatively, the court concluded that, even if abstention was discretionary, an analysis of the factors in § 1334(c)(1) also led it to conclude that abstention was appropriate. The court submitted its decision as a report and recommendation to the district court.