Zitat AG:
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW REFERENCE
Before me is a motion to withdraw reference. (D.I. 1). It has been fully briefed. (Id.,
D.I. 4, D.I. 7). Unlike the few other motions to withdraw reference I have seen, which have been
based on purported rights to a jury trial, this motion is a non-mandatory motion. I may withdraw
the reference "for cause shown." 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). The basis for the motion is that there is a
motion pending in the Bankruptcy Court for a final decree, which would close the bankruptcy
case. It is currently scheduled to be heard on December 19, 2019, at 2:00 p.m. (B.D.I. 12674). 1
It has been objected to by Claimant Griffin, who also brings this motion. The purported cause is
that the Bankruptcy Court, if it closes the case, may equitably moot a pending appeal and/or cost
the Claimant $2,334 or more to petition the Bankruptcy Court to reopen the case if she is
successful on her pending appeal. (D.I. 1 at 7). The logic does not hold up. It would justify
1 The "B.D.1." citation is to the docket in the Bankruptcy Court in case no. 08-bk-12229.
Page I of 3
Case 1:19-cv-02072-RGA Document 10 Filed 12/10/19 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 323
removing any bankruptcy reference at any time, as adverse bankruptcy court rulings are always
going to put a burden on the party that loses the ruling. But, as Claimant concedes, the law
"intend[s] to have bankruptcy proceedings adjudicated in bankruptcy court, unless rebutted by a
contravening policy." (Id. at 3 n.3).
Claimant relies upon In re Pruitt, 910 F.2d 1160, 1168 (3d Cir. 1990), for a five-factor
test as to whether cause exists to withdraw a reference. None of the five factors supports
withdrawal. For example, uniformity in the bankruptcy process is promoted by having
bankruptcy judges decide routine bankruptcy issues such as whether to close a case or not.
Trying to get me to step into this case at this point is forum shopping. What Claimant wants me
to do is not to expedite the bankruptcy process, but to slow it down. The timing of the motion is
essentially last minute, and now has resulted in another motion from Claimant, this one for me to
expedite my decision on the motion to withdraw reference. Claimant's attempt to withdraw
reference may under some circumstances save her $2,334, but it is, I am sure, much more
economical overall to litigate these issues before a court with relevant experience.
I note that the underlying Bankruptcy Court case was filed more than ten years ago, and it
has been handled by the same judge for the entire time. There have now been more than 12,000
filings in the case. The bankruptcy judge is much better positioned than I am to judge the merits
of Claimant's objections to the motion for a final decree.
There seems to be a suggestion by Claimant that the bankruptcy judge has already made
her mind up on the motion for a final decree. I read the transcript of the hearing which is the
basis for Claimant's suggestion. (D.I. 4-3). I read the bankruptcy judge's remarks to be a
representation that if such a motion were filed, it would be promptly scheduled. (Id. at 10-13).
Nothing more.
Page 2 of 3
Case 1:19-cv-02072-RGA Document 10 Filed 12/10/19 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 324
I also note Claimant's alternative request for mandamus relief. (D.I. 1 at 11). Mandamus
is an extraordinary remedy, and there is no basis for it here.
Thus, the motion to withdraw reference (D.I. 1) is DENIED. The motion to expedite
(D.I. 9) is DISMISSED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of December 2019.
Page3of3
Zitatende
MfG.L;)
Alles nur meine pers. Meinung, kein Kauf- oder Verkaufs-Empfehlung!
Zurück
