In re H & W Motor Express Co.
Decision Date | 01 May 2006 |
Docket Number | No. 05-CV-1029-LRR.,Bankruptcy No. 04-9106.,Bankruptcy No. 02-2017D.,05-CV-1029-LRR. |
Citation | 343 B.R. 208 |
Parties | In re H & W MOTOR EXPRESS COMPANY Larry S. Eide, Chapter 7 Trustee, Plaintiff, v. Urban R. Haas and Patricia M. Haas, Individually and as Trustees of the Marie C. Haas Trusts, f/b/o Urban Andrew Haas, Christopher James Haas, Aimee Marie Haas, n/k/a Aimee Marie Haas Walsh and Catherine Anthoine Haas, Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. Roger Waldner, Third-Party Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
Larry S Eide, Pappajohn, Shriver, Eide & Nicholas, PC, Mason City, IA, for Plaintiff.
William T. McCartan, Bradley & Riley, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendant.
David J. Dutton, James R. Hellman, Dutton Braun Staack Hellman Iversen, Waterloo, IA, for Third-party Defendant.
Office of the U.S. Trustee, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Trustee.
ORDER ON MOTION TO WITHDRAW REFERENCE OF CASE OR PROCEEDING WITHIN CASE
Before the court is Third-Party Defendant Roger Waldner's Motion to Withdraw Reference of Case or Proceeding within Case ("Motion") (docket no. 6).
On July 11, 2004, Larry S. Eide filed a Complaint in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa ("the Bankruptcy Court") against Urban Haas and Patricia Haas. Eide was a Chapter 7 Trustee in In re H & W Motor Express Company, Case No. 02-2017D, another case pending in the Bankruptcy Court.1 By filing the Complaint, Eide initiated an adversary proceeding against the Haases and sought to recover property of the bankruptcy estate. See 11 U.S.C. § 542(a) ( ); see also id. § 323 ( ).
Eide proceeded in the Bankruptcy Court for nearly a year, and numerous filings and orders were docketed. On November 8, 2004, the Haases filed a Third-Party Claim against Waldner. On April 29, 2005, more than five months after he filed his Answer to the Haases's Third-Party Claim, Waldner filed the instant Motion in the Bankruptcy Court. Waldner represented to the Bankruptcy Court that: Cause exists for the withdrawal of this matter, to wit: this matter is a non-core proceeding, as to which the Bankruptcy Judge, under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c), may only hear and report, and in light of the likelihood that de novo review will be sought under 28 U.S.C. 157(c)(1), it is in the interest of judicial economy for the District Court to hear the matter in the first instance. Withdrawal of the reference is particularly appropriate in this case since there is currently pending before the District Court a civil action involving the same parties and the same Memorandums of Understanding. See Case No. C04-1014[-]EMJ.
Roger D. Waldner is the Plaintiff in another case, Waldner v. Carr, et al., No. C04-1014-EMJ. Waldner is currently pending in the district court. The Haases are two of more than a dozen defendants in Waldner.
On May 5, 2005, Chief Bankruptcy Judge Paul J. Kilburg stayed all action in Eide pending the district court's ruling on the Motion. On May 24, 2005, Sean F. McAvoy, Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa, electronically transmitted a certified record of Eide to the Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Iowa. Included in the record was Waldner's Motion.2 Neither Eide nor the Haases resisted or joined in Waldner's Motion.
Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases. 28 U.S.C. § 1334. "District courts, however, need not adjudicate these cases; they may refer them to bankruptcy courts...." United States v. Gurley, 434 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir.2006) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 157(a)). Title 28, United States Code, Section 157(a) permits a district court to "provide that any or all cases under title 11 and any or all proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11 shall be referred to the bankruptcy judges for the district." 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). In the Northern District of Iowa, bankruptcy actions are routinely referred to bankruptcy judges pursuant to a standing administrative order. See N.D. Iowa Administrative Order No. 927 (May 5, 1986) ( ). On the basis of Section 157(a) and the standing administrative order, Eide was automatically referred by this court to the Bankruptcy Court.
Title 28, United States Code, Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw its prior reference of a case to a bankruptcy court. 28 U.S.C. § 157(d); see Vreugdenhil v. Hoekstra, 773 F.2d 213, 215 (8th Cir.1985) ( ). Section 157(d) provides:
The district court may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding referred under this section, on its own motion or on timely motion of any party, for cause shown. The district court shall, on timely motion of a party, so withdraw a proceeding if the court determines that resolution of the proceeding requires consideration of both title 11 and other laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce.
28 U.S.C. § 157(d).
Section 157(d) contains two provisions by which the district court may withdraw its earlier reference of a case to bankruptcy court: a discretionary provision and a mandatory provision. Under the discretionary provision, withdrawal of the reference may be accomplished "for cause shown" upon "timely motion of any party" or upon the court's own motion. 28 U.S.C. § 157(d); see also Morgan v. Rabun, 128 F.3d 694, 699 (8th Cir.1997) ( ). Under the mandatory provision, withdrawal of the reference is required "on timely motion of a party" if the court determines that, in order to resolve the bankruptcy case, the court would also have to consider "other laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce." 28 U.S.C. § 157(d); see also Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 471, 103 S.Ct. 864, 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983) (, )overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995).
Waldner's Motion invokes only the discretionary provision of Section 157(d). There are no claims in the case that would require the court to consider "other laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce." 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). Thus, the court shall only consider the discretionary provision of Section 157(d). "Where, as here, the only federal law at issue is the Bankruptcy Code itself, withdrawal is generally discretionary." Vreugdenhil, 773 F.2d at 215 ( ).
To grant a party's motion to withdraw the reference under the discretionary provision of Section 157(d), the court must find (1) the motion was "timely" and (2) the party has shown "cause" for withdrawal. Id.; see also United States v. Kaplan, 146 B.R. 500, 503 (D.Mass.1992) () (Emphasis in original.). Waldner, as the moving party, bears the burden of proof on both elements. Kaplan, 146 B.R. at 503; see also In re Ponce Marine Farm, Inc., 172 B.R. 722, 725 (D.P.R.1994) (similar); In re Mich. Real Estate Ins. Trust, 87 B.R. 447, 459 (E.D.Mich.1988) (similar). The court shall now consider each of these two requirements, in turn.
Section 157(d) does not set forth a specific deadline before which parties must file motions to withdraw reference. In re N.Y. Trap Rock Corp., 158 B.R. 574, 577 (S.D.N.Y.1993); see also In re Lars, Inc., 290 B.R. 467, 470 (D.P.R.2003) (same). Neither the Supreme Court nor the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has considered what constitutes a "timely" filed motion to withdraw the reference. Other district courts have issued varying and somewhat inconsistent rulings. Compare Burger King Corp. v. B-K of Kan., Inc., 64 B.R. 728, 730-31 (D.Kan.1986) ( ), with Laine v. Gross, 128 B.R. 588, 589 (D.Me.1991) ( ).
The court holds that the test for timeliness is ultimately one of reasonableness under the circumstances. See Kaplan, 146 B.R. at 503 (). The party seeking withdrawal must file its motion as soon as practicable. See, e.g., In re Sevko, Inc., 143 B.R. 114, 116 (N.D.Ill.1992) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Casamatta v. Castle Law Office of Kan. City, P.C. (In re James)
...and "related to," see In re Sinn, Adv. No. 14-4051, 2014 WL 7689811 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. Oct. 7, 2014). 26. Eide v. Haas (In re H & W Motor Express Co.), 343 B.R. 208, 212 (N.D. Iowa 2006). The motions here were timely filed since they were filed along with the answers. 27. 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). ......
-
U.S. Tr. v. Law Solutions Chi., LLC (In re Scott)
...and "related to," see In re Sinn, Adv. No. 14-4051, 2014 WL 7689811 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. Oct. 7, 2014). 24. Eide v. Haas (In re H & W Motor Express Co.), 343 B.R. 208, 212 (N.D. Iowa 2006). 25. Id. at213. 26. 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). 27. Defendants' Reply Suggestions in Support of Their Motion to Wi......
-
Albert v. Site Mgmt., Inc.
...a better vantage point from which to make proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in the first instance.In re H & W Motor Express Co., 343 B.R. 208, 215 (N.D.Iowa 2006) (alterations in original, internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Given the bankruptcy court's familiari......
-
Chowdhury v. Hansmeier
...after the moving party has notice of the grounds for withdrawal, depending on the facts of each case." In re H & W Motor Express Co. , 343 B.R. 208, 213 (N.D. Iowa 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted) (collecting cases); accord In re Stephens , Nos. 12-1145, 12-1423, 2012 WL 4758354, at......