Defendants in a state court action removed that action to the bankruptcy court and sought to have venue transferred to Oregon, where they had a pending bankruptcy. Plaintiffs did not appear at the motion to change venue. Nonetheless, the court considered equitable grounds for remand, including duplication of judicial resources, uneconomical use of judicial resources, effect of remand on the administration of the estate, questions of state law better addressed by a state court, comity considerations, prejudice to involuntarily removed parties, lessened possibility of inconsistent result, and expertise of the court where the action originated, concluding that those considerations supported remand to Utah's state courts. The court particularly found the facts that the state court action had been proceeding for ten years, final judgment had been rendered by the state trial court, and the matter was on appeal in the state appellate court for the second time, coupled with the existence of unique state law issues, supported remand. Further, the court concluded that the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1452, should not be applied where doing so would result in the bankruptcy court functioning as an appellate court.