28 U.S.C. § 157

Section 157(c)(1) requires a district court to review de novo a bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions to which a party timely and specifically objects.

Horwitz v. MacKinnon · filed 2025-06-20(c)(1)

No party objected to these conclusions, and this Court therefore need not review them de novo.

Section 157(c)(1) requires the district court to review de novo matters in a bankruptcy court’s proposed findings and conclusions to which a party timely and specifically objects.

1250 Oceanside, LLC v. Buckles · filed 2017-05-25(c)(1)

If a bankruptcy court submits proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law under § 157(c), the district court “revieW[s] dé novo' those matters to Which any party has timely and specifically objected.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to hear a noncore proceeding, but the district court enters the final judgment unless the parties consent under subsection (c)(2).

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. DiMucci · filed 2015-08-07(c)(1)

The Supreme Court has also determined that although bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction to hear noncore proceedings, they do not have jurisdiction to enter final judgments on noncore causes of action. Thus, bankruptcy courts are not courts of “competent jurisdiction” that can enter final judgments on noncore state-law claims for res judicata purposes.

Section 157(c)(1) requires de novo review of proposed findings in a non-core proceeding only for matters challenged by timely, specific objections.

In re Preston · filed 2014-09-18(c)(1)

Similarly, § 157(c) of the Bankruptcy Code mandates de novo review only of “those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(c). ... This Court thus considers Moore and the Trust to have waived their right to object to the Proposed Findings and to receive a de novo review.

Section 157(c)(1) calls for de novo district court review of a bankruptcy court’s proposed findings and conclusions in a non-core matter when a party objects.

WBZE, Inc. v. Arab Network of America (In Re WBZE, Inc.) · filed 1998-05-19(c)(1)

This matter is before the Court on the objections of Defendant ANA Radio Network, Inc. to the Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law submitted by the Bankruptcy Court. Since this is a non-core matter, the Court exercises de novo review.

For a noncore related proceeding under § 157(c), the district court’s de novo examination is treated like review of a magistrate judge’s decision.

Timothy J. Henderson, Trustee v. Neil Buchanan, and Bruno Menicucci, Anna Menicucci, and Menicucci Insurance Services, I · filed 1993-02-11(c)

With respect to the breach of fiduciary duty claim, however, we treat the district court’s de novo examination thereof as if it were a review of a magistrate judge’s decision under Fed. R.Civ.P. 72(b). See Castro v. Perez (In re Castro), 919 F.2d 107, 108 (9th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (review of noncore related proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)).

Section 157(c)(1) calls for de novo district court review of bankruptcy court findings in a noncore proceeding related to a Title 11 case.

Bast v. Orange Meat Packing Co. (In Re G & L Packing Co.) · filed 1984-07-17(c)(1)

Accordingly, the court will review the findings of fact of the bankruptcy court in accordance with the de novo standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157 does not change the clearly erroneous standard for district court review of a bankruptcy judge’s findings in core proceedings.

In Re X-Cel, Inc. · filed 1984-11-19

The new amendments to the Bankruptcy Code do not change the standard of review for cases such as this one. ... However, nothing in the amendments refers to the district court’s scope of review of a bankruptcy judge’s decisions in core proceedings. We therefore assume that Congress intended to maintain the clearly erroneous standard of review already established in Bankruptcy Rule 8013.

Section 157(c)(1) provides for district court de novo review of objections to a bankruptcy court’s findings and conclusions in a non-core proceeding.

Chemical Bank v. Grisby's World of Carpet, Inc. (In Re WWG Industries, Inc.) · filed 1984-11-28(c)(1)

The defendant has filed its objections pursuant to the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, Pub.L.No. 98-353, 1984 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News (98 Stat.) 333, 341 (to be codified at 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1)). After reviewing de novo the issues raised by defendant’s objections, the Court adopts in part the findings and conclusions of the bankruptcy court.

Section 157 allows a district court to refer bankruptcy cases and proceedings through a general order without issuing a separate referral order for each case.

Berger v. Schuler (In Re Schuler) · filed 1985-01-11

The bankruptcy court achieves jurisdiction only by referral of cases and proceedings to it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157. ... Such cases must first be removed to the district court which then may, consistent with its general order of referral, refer it to the bankruptcy court for disposition. I do not believe a separate order of reference would be necessary for each case so removed because the general order of reference by its terms seems broad enough.

Section 157 does not change the clearly erroneous standard for district court review of a bankruptcy judge’s findings in core proceedings.

Gaslight Club, Inc. v. Official Creditors Committee · filed 1985-01-16(b)

Bankruptcy judges may hear and determine all core proceedings referred to them under § 157; they may also hear non-core proceedings and then submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court. ... However, nothing in the amendments refers to the district court’s scope of review of a bankruptcy judge’s decisions in core proceedings. We therefore assume that Congress intended to maintain the clearly erroneous standard of review already established in Bankruptcy Rule 8013.

Section 157 permits clear error review of relevant factual findings in a bankruptcy court order that falls within its authority.

Big Shanty Land Corp. v. Comer Properties, Inc. · filed 1985-10-04

The Court concludes, however, that the February 5, 1985 order is within the ambit of 28 U.S.C. § 157; consequently, the clearly erroneous standard of review is applicable with respect to the relevant findings of fact.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a district court to treat a bankruptcy court’s conclusions as a recommendation and review them de novo.

Borchardt v. Farmers State Bank of Sherburn (In Re Borchardt) · filed 1986-01-27(c)(1)

Accordingly, this court considers the matter in the procedural posture of a recommendation and conducts a de novo review of the bankruptcy court’s conclusions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) requires de novo review of proposed bankruptcy court findings and conclusions only on issues to which a party specifically objects.

Franklin Computer Corp. v. ABS Computer Center (In re Franklin Computer Corp.) · filed 1986-03-26(c)(1)

The district court “must hear de novo only those issues to which any party has specifically objected.” ... No such objections have been filed. This court adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(c) requires a district court to review de novo a bankruptcy judge’s proposed conclusions in a non-core related proceeding when a party timely and specifically objects.

Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations v. Kubly (In Re Kubly) · filed 1986-09-15(c)

28 U.S.C. § 157(c) provides that in a proceeding “that is not a core proceeding but that is otherwise related to a case under Title 11,” the district court is to consider the bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and is to review de novo those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected. ... Plaintiff has objected to the second conclusion, which means that it must be reviewed de novo.

Section 157(c)(1) ordinarily requires a bankruptcy court to recommend a disposition of a related proceeding to the district court, but this court held that the bankruptcy court may decide the proceeding when referral would defeat necessary federal jurisdiction.

First United Partners 9 v. Williams Meat Co. (In Re First United Partners 9) · filed 1986-10-08(c)(1)

This action, therefore, must, at most, be regarded as one ‘related to’ bankruptcy proceedings within the meaning of § 157(b)(1), Title 28, United States Code, as to which the bankruptcy court is obliged to render a report and recommendation to the district court, rather than decide the action itself, in accordance with § 157(c)(1) of the same title. ... When reference of the action to the district court for decision would defeat the federal jurisdiction which must be exercised if the goals of the Bankruptcy statutes are to be maintained, the bankruptcy court may exercise jurisdiction, even if it means exercising Article III powers in an isolated case.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to submit proposed findings and conclusions in a related noncore proceeding, but requires the district judge to review the matter de novo and enter the final order.

Credit Alliance Corp. v. Penn Hook Coal Co., Inc. · filed 1987-07-21(c)(1)

The Guarantors are not themselves debtors in bankruptcy; thus, this matter is not a “core proceeding”, and the bankruptcy court’s only jurisdiction over them was pursuant to the “related to” jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). Under that statute, a bankruptcy court may submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, and any final order as to the judgment must be entered by the district judge after reviewing the matter de novo.

Section 157(c)(1) calls for objections, rather than an appeal, to challenge a bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions in the district court.

Northeast Dairy Cooperative Federation Inc. v. Dellwood Foods, Inc. (In re Northeast Dairy Cooperative Federation, Inc.) · filed 1987-08-06(c)(1)

However, appeal is not the correct procedure under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). Rather this court has considered the points raised by these defendants as objections under § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1)’s de novo review procedure does not govern a bankruptcy court judgment entered before Northern Pipeline; the traditional standard of review applies.

In Re Computer Communications, Inc., Debtor. Computer Communications, Inc. v. Codex Corporation · filed 1987-08-07(c)(1)

The Act mandates de novo review of all bankruptcy court decisions except those that are essentially bankruptcy matters such as administration of the bankrupt estate. 28 U.S.C. § 157 (Supp. II 1984). ... Northern Pipeline implicitly mandates continuance of the traditional standard of review. ... It follows that such judgments should be reviewed under the traditional standard.

Section 157(c)(1) calls for de novo district court review of a bankruptcy judge’s ruling in a non-core proceeding.

Metro Transportation Co. v. Balboa Insurance · filed 1987-12-18(c)(1)

Because this is a non-core proceeding, ... review of the PUC’s motion to intervene is de novo rather than on appeal from Judge Scholl’s order. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) subjects a bankruptcy court’s decision in a non-core related proceeding to de novo district court review.

Manufacturers Acceptance Corp. v. Caribank Corp. (In Re Manufacturers Acceptance Corp.) · filed 1988-01-27(c)(1)

The effect of this decision, of course, is that any decision rendered in this court is subject to de novo review in the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) requires de novo review of matters timely and specifically objected to in a bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings; it does not require a new trial.

Northeast Dairy Cooperative Federation, Inc. v. Hogan Souhan All Star Dairy, Inc. (In re Northeast Dairy Cooperative Fed · filed 1988-01-05(c)(1)

In addition, in its objections, although defendant claims it is entitled to a de novo trial according to “statute” defendant has not pointed to any statute authorizing such trial. Section 157(c)(1) simply provides that the court review “de novo those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected.”

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy court handling a related, noncore proceeding to submit proposed findings and conclusions for the district court’s de novo review and final judgment.

Foreston Coal International, Inc. v. Red Ash Coal & Coke Corp. (In Re Red Ash Coal & Coke Corp.) · filed 1988-02-26(c)(1)

Because Jordan is a guarantor who is not himself in bankruptcy, this matter is not a “core proceeding.” The bankruptcy court’s only jurisdiction over Jordan is pursuant to the “related to” jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C.A. § 157(c)(1) (Supp.1987). Accordingly, the bankruptcy court could only submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to this court, and this court must enter final judgment after a de novo review.

Section 157 requires a district court referral before a bankruptcy court may exercise jurisdiction over a bankruptcy case.

In Re Interpictures, Inc. · filed 1988-03-22(a)

What is clear from the 1984 amendments is that such limited jurisdiction as is given to the Bankruptcy Court is exercised only by virtue of a referral from the District Court: without District Court referral, the Bankruptcy Court is not empowered to exercise jurisdiction over any aspect of a bankruptcy case.

Section 157(c)(1) requires district court review of a bankruptcy court’s proposed decision in a noncore proceeding.

Gabel v. Engra, Inc. (In Re Engra, Inc.) · filed 1988-04-12(c)(1)

Moreover, since the proceeding is noncore, further delay will result if the dispute is resolved by a bankruptcy court in that the district court will have to review the decision de novo.

Section 157(c) permits parties in a non-core proceeding to waive de novo review and consent to a final bankruptcy court decision even when that decision will not be appealable.

Exchange Mutual Insurance v. Maness (In Re Maness) · filed 1988-06-10(c)

This merely describes the general effect of waiving de-novo review; the district court changes from the trial court to an appellate court. It does not mean that waiver of de novo review is allowed only if the decision will be subject to appeal.

Section 157(c)(1) permits new evidence during de novo review of specific objections but does not require a full new trial.

Chicago Bank of Commerce v. Amalgamated Trust & Savings Bank (In Re Memorial Estates, Inc.) · filed 1988-09-01(c)(1)

Section 157(c)(1) neither requires nor precludes new evidence, and it does not require a trial de novo extenso.

Section 157(c)(1) requires the district court to review de novo matters subject to specific and timely objections to a bankruptcy judge’s recommendation.

Charter Crude Oil Co. v. Exxon Co., U.S.A. (In Re Charter Co.) · filed 1989-04-20(c)(1)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) and Bankruptcy Rule 9033(d), the Court must conduct a de novó review as to matters to which a party has made specific and timely objections.

Section 157 places bankruptcy jurisdiction in the district court and allows it to refer matters to bankruptcy judges or withdraw a reference.

BROWNING v. NAVARRO · filed 1989-10-23

28 U.S.C. Sec. 157 places bankruptcy jurisdiction firmly in the hands of the district court.

Section 157 places bankruptcy jurisdiction in the district court and permits it to withdraw a reference to the bankruptcy court.

Browning v. Navarro · filed 1989-10-23

28 U.S.C. § 157 places bankruptcy jurisdiction firmly in the hands of the district court. Under the 1984 Amendments, therefore, the court which heard Holloway’s § 1983 claim had subject matter jurisdiction over his fraud claim.

Section 157(c)(1) requires the district judge to review de novo the portions of a bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions to which a party timely and specifically objects.

Specialty Retail Concepts, Inc. v. RSB, Inc. (In Re Specialty Retail Concepts, Inc.) · filed 1989-11-15(c)(1)

In accordance with section 157 and Bankruptcy Rule 9033, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the portions of Judge Wooten’s May 19, 1989 Order to which Defendants specifically objected.

Section 157(c)(1) provides for district court de novo review of proposed findings and conclusions from a bankruptcy court.

In Re Keane · filed 1990-02-07(c)(1)

The Court considered all of the evidence de novo pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) and Bankruptcy Rule 9033.

Section 157(c) permits a bankruptcy judge to hear related non-core proceedings without the parties’ consent when the district court reviews the non-core issues de novo.

Buchanan v. Henderson · filed 1990-10-12(c)(1)-(2)

This court, in its order of June 30, 1989, dealt with the issue of consent and concluded that the non-core issues would be reviewed de novo. Therefore, the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims in the manner in which they were adjudicated.

Section 157(c)(1) requires the district court to review the record when conducting de novo review of objected-to findings in a non-core proceeding; a new hearing is not required.

In Re Berta Castro and Eustacio Castro, Debtors. Eustacio Castro Berta Castro v. Jose Perez Liliana Miranda · filed 1990-11-16(c)(1)

Although new hearings are not required for de novo review, a review of the record is required. ... Here, the district court could not have considered the actual testimony in the bankruptcy court, because the reporter’s transcript had not yet been prepared when the district court judgment was entered.

Section 157(c)(1) does not require the record to be physically moved to the district court for de novo review.

Home Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Dillon Construction Co. (In re Dillon Construction Co.) · filed 1991-01-07(c)(1)

We do not read into either section 157(c)(1) or Bankruptcy Rule 9033 any requirement concerning the physical location of the record to be reviewed.

Section 157(c)(1) does not require the record to be physically transferred to the district court for de novo review.

In Re Dillon Construction Company, Inc. · filed 1991-01-07(c)(1)

We do not read into either section 157(c)(1) or Bankruptcy Rule 9033 any requirement concerning the physical location of the record to be reviewed.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to submit proposed findings in a related, non-core proceeding; the district court may enter final judgment after reviewing properly objected-to matters de novo.

Internal Revenue Service v. Brickell Investment Corp. (In re Brickell Investment Corp.) · filed 1991-01-28(c)(1)

Where a proceeding is not a core proceeding but is "related" to a case under Title 11, the bankruptcy court may submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court. The district court may enter a final order or judgment after considering the proposed findings and conclusions and reviewing de novo any matters to which a party has properly objected. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(c)(1). An award of attorney's fees under Sec. 7430 could be made under this procedure without any problem under Bowen or In re Davis since the Article III district court would ultimately award the fees.

Section 157(c)(1) limits district court de novo review of a bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings in a related proceeding to matters timely and specifically objected to.

McKesson Corp. v. El Paso Pharm, Inc. (In Re El Paso Pharm, Inc.) · filed 1991-07-29(c)(1)

The highlighted language demonstrates that the scope of review of bankruptcy court decisions in related proceedings is not broad and mandatory, as it is under the Magistrates Act, but rather is limited to “those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected.”

In a related proceeding that is not core, the bankruptcy court submits proposed findings and conclusions, and the district court enters final judgment after de novo review of timely, specific objections.

Southeast Arkansas Landfill, Inc. v. Arkansas Ex Rel. Arkansas Department of Pollution Control & Ecology (In Re Southeas · filed 1992-01-24(c)(1)

Accordingly, the District Court has the power to enter a final order or judgment after a de novo review of those matters to which any party timely and specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

In non-core bankruptcy proceedings, the district court must consider the bankruptcy court’s proposed findings and conclusions and review timely, specific objections de novo.

Adair v. Sunwest Bank (In re Adair) · filed 1992-06-03(c)(1)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), in non-core bankruptcy proceedings the district court must consider the bankruptcy court's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and must review de novo "those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected."

When no party objects to a bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions in a non-core proceeding, § 157(c)(1) calls for the district court to consider those findings and conclusions.

Bennett v. Genoa Ag Center, Inc. (In Re Bennett) · filed 1993-01-05(c)(1)

In the present case, none of the parties has submitted any objections to the matter presently before the court. Thus, the court’s task is limited to its consideration of the Bankruptcy Court’s findings and conclusions with respect to plaintiff’s eleventh cause of action.

Section 157(c) requires a district court to review de novo the bankruptcy court’s proposed findings and conclusions to which a party objects in a related non-core proceeding before entering final judgment.

Shields v. National Union Fire Insurance (In Re Lloyd Securities, Inc.) · filed 1993-02-26(c)

Because the issues raised by the summary judgment motion are non-core issues yet related to the bankruptcy case of In re Lloyd Securities, Inc., this court must consider the bankruptcy court’s proposed findings and conclusions and subject those matters to which any party has filed objections to a de novo review.

Section 157(c) requires a district court to review de novo timely, specific objections to a bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions in a non-core proceeding before entering judgment.

Boyd v. Sachs (In Re Auto Specialties Manufacturing Co.) · filed 1993-04-26(c)

When a bankruptcy judge submits proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in non-core proceedings, the district court, before entering a final order or judgment, must consider the proposed findings and conclusions and review de novo those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected.

In a noncore proceeding, the bankruptcy judge may hear the matter but must submit proposed findings and conclusions for de novo review by the district court.

Georgou v. Fritzshall (In Re Georgou) · filed 1993-07-13(c)(1)

If litigation is a noncore proceeding, the bankruptcy judge may “hear” it, but must submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court for de novo review. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). ... Thus, the Court reviews the decision of the Bankruptcy Judge de novo.

Section 157(c)(1) requires the district court to review de novo matters in a bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings to which a party timely and specifically objects.

Marks v. Powell · filed 1993-08-20(c)(1)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c) and Bankruptcy Rule 9033(d), the Court is to conduct a de novo review of those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected.

Section 157(c)(1) requires de novo review of timely objections to a bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings, but does not permit a party to submit evidence it did not present to the bankruptcy judge.

de'Medici v. Top Line Record Distributors, Inc. (In re Lifschultz Fast Freight Corp.) · filed 1994-11-18(c)(1)

While the court recognizes that it must review de novo the proposed findings of a bankruptcy court to which the trustee has timely objected, the court will not permit the trustee to present evidence that was not presented to the bankruptcy judge. To allow submissions of new evidence would render 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) meaningless.

Section 157(c)(1) requires the district court to review de novo matters in a bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions to which a party timely and specifically objects.

Estate of Daily v. Title Guaranty Escrow Service, Inc. · filed 1995-02-21(c)(1)

After considering the bankruptcy court’s proposed findings and conclusions, the district court reviews de novo those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected.

In a non-core proceeding, a bankruptcy judge's findings are not final until reviewed de novo by the district court.

Copeland v. Merrill Lynch & Co. · filed 1995-03-09(c)(1)

The bankruptcy court's jurisdiction over Copeland's individual damage claim for breach of contract was non-core at best. Thus, even assuming that the bankruptcy court's order transferring the case to the Eastern District of Louisiana is read to adopt a "rule of law" based on the bankruptcy court's earlier findings in the confirmation hearing, those findings would not be final until reviewed de novo by the district court.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy court to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for de novo review by the district court.

Licon v. Infergene Co. · filed 1995-04-07(c)(1)

However, that court reacted correctly when it recognized that it could not issue a final order. The bankruptcy court could, however, submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court for its de novo review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c) requires district court review of a bankruptcy court’s report and recommendation before final judgment in a noncore proceeding.

Traylor v. First Family Financial Services, Inc. (In Re Traylor) · filed 1995-12-08(c)

If the ease were tried in the bankruptcy court, however, a final judgment must await the district court’s review of the bankruptcy court’s report and recommendation, as this action is a noncore proceeding.

In a non-core proceeding, the district court reviews de novo the bankruptcy court’s proposed findings and conclusions to which a party timely and specifically objects.

Aimtree Co. v. AT & T Corp. (In re Aimtree Co.) · filed 1996-10-07(c)(1)

In reviewing a bankruptcy court’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in a non-core proceeding, the district court must examine de novo “those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected.” Bankruptcy Rule 9033.

Section 157(c)(1) requires the district court to review de novo the bankruptcy court’s findings and conclusions to which a party timely and specifically objects.

Welt v. Sirmans · filed 1997-10-11(c)(1)

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) this Court shall review de novo the findings and conclusions of the Bankruptcy Court to which any party has timely and specifically objected.

Section 157(c)(1) calls for de novo district court review of matters specifically objected to in a bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions in a non-core proceeding.

Pettigrew v. Citizens Trust Bank · filed 1998-05-06(c)(1)

Pursuant to section 157(c)(1) and Federal Bankruptcy Rule of Procedure 9033(d), the court will conduct de novo review upon the record of those matters to which Defendant specifically objects. ... Accordingly, after conducting de novo review on the record, the court declines to adopt the bankruptcy judge’s recommendation that Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim be granted and that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be denied.

Section 157(c) authorizes bankruptcy courts to hear non-core matters while reserving final determination to district courts.

Jackson National Life Ins. v. Kendig (In Re Ben Franklin Retail Stores, Inc.) · filed 1999-03-25(c)

Indeed, the whole point of § 157(c) is to authorize the bankruptcy court to “hear” non-core matters, while reserving to the district court the ultimate power to determine those matters by final judgment.

Section 157(c)(1) requires de novo review of the bankruptcy court’s proposed disposition in a non-core proceeding, not de novo review of an underlying arbitration award.

In Re: Crysen/montenay Energy Co., Debtor. Crysen/montenay Energy Co., Debtor-Appellant v. Shell Oil Co. And Scallop Pet · filed 2000-08-29(c)(1)

Crysen’s suggestion — that in a non-core proceeding a district court must review de novo an arbitration award, not simply the bankruptcy court’s own review of that award — is illogical and without support. The District Court properly reviewed the decision of the Bankruptcy Court by putting itself in the position of the Bankruptcy Court when it offered its recommendation — that is, by reviewing the award for manifest disregard of law. This is precisely what de novo review required.

Section 157 does not permit a district court to make independent factual findings for the bankruptcy court.

ProFutures Special Equities Fund, L.P. v. Spade (In Re Spade) · filed 2000-11-16

It is not within the purview of district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 157 to make independent factual findings for the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(c)(1) requires de novo review of timely, specific objections to a bankruptcy court’s proposed findings, while leaving the district court discretion over how to review the record; a hearing is not required.

Marshall v. Marshall (In Re Marshall) · filed 2001-12-21(c)(1)

The Court is now “reviewing de novo those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). As the Court noted in its August 27 order in this matter, the Court has broad discretion to determine how to go about reviewing the record in this matter, so long as it conducts an actual review. ... A hearings is not required when reviewing the bankruptcy court’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law under section 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) requires a district court reviewing a bankruptcy court’s proposed findings and conclusions de novo to review matters to which a party timely and specifically objected.

Marshall v. Marshall (In Re Marshall) · filed 2002-03-07(c)(1)

When conducting a de novo review of the bankruptcy court's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, a district court must review "those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). Pierce filed his brief on the merits on June 25, 2001, and his amended assignments of error on June 27, 2001. Pierce did not object to the bankruptcy court’s reading of Texas law.

Section 157(c)(1) requires the district court to review timely, specific objections to a bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings in a noncore proceeding de novo before entering final judgment.

Bannistor v. Ullman · filed 2002-04-02(c)(1)

The district court satisfied § 157(c)(1)’s requirements by performing de novo review, adopting the repo rt, and eventually entering a final judgment.

Section 157(c)(1) requires de novo district court review of a bankruptcy court’s proposed findings and conclusions and permits the court to accept, reject, or modify them.

Bremer Business Finance Corp. v. Whitney (In Re SRC Holding Corp.) · filed 2007-04-06(c)(1)

This Court reviews a bankruptcy court’s Report and Recommendation under a de novo standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1); Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9033(d). The Court may accept, reject, or modify the proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law. Id.

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy court to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court in non-core proceedings related to a bankruptcy case.

Vozella v. Basel Van Aswegen (In Re Basel Van Aswegen) · filed 2007-04-12(c)(1)

As such, the Court must submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) requires de novo district court review of a bankruptcy court’s proposed findings and conclusions in a non-core proceeding.

In re Tower Automotive, Inc. · filed 2007-04-16(c)(1)

In a non-core proceeding such as this, a bankruptcy court’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are subject to de novo review by the district court.

Section 157(c)(1) requires the district judge to review timely, specific objections to a bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions de novo before entering final judgment in a non-core proceeding.

Carn v. Medical Data Systems, Inc. (In Re Cambron) · filed 2007-12-04(c)(1)

The court has considered the proposed findings and conclusions and has reviewed de novo those matters to which the Defendant has timely and specifically objected.

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy judge in a non-core proceeding to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court, which reviews timely, specific objections de novo before entering judgment.

Perkins v. American International Specialty Lines Insurance · filed 2012-12-11(c)(1)

This is not a core proceeding within the definition of 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). In non-core proceedings, bankruptcy judges are limited to submitting “proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, and any final order or judgment shall be entered by the district judge after considering the bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions and after reviewing de novo those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) makes a bankruptcy court’s proposed findings subject to district court review; the district court may reopen factual disputes.

El Camino Resources, LTD. v. Huntington National Bank · filed 2013-04-08(c)(1)

In addition, the district court would not be required to reconsider its summary judgment ruling because the bankruptcy court finding is preliminary and non-binding. The findings are subject to review by the district court which may ultimately decide to reopen factual disputes addressed in the avoidance proceeding. See In re Teleservices Grp., Inc., 456 B.R. 318, 340 n.67 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2011); 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) requires a district judge to review timely, specific objections to proposed findings in a non-core proceeding de novo before entering final judgment.

Fox v. Koplik · filed 2013-08-14(c)(1)

Where a proceeding is not a core proceeding, but is “otherwise related to a case under title 11,” and the parties have not consented to entry of final judgment by the bankruptcy court, the bankruptcy court “shall submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, and any final order or judgment shall be entered by the district judge after considering the bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions and after reviewing de novo those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected.”

Section 157(c) subjects a bankruptcy court’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on non-core claims to de novo review by the district court.

Ball Four, Inc. v. 2011-SIP-1 Cre/Cadc Venture, LLC · filed 2014-05-15(c)

Those proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are subject to de novo review by this Court.

Under § 157(c)(1), a party that prevailed before the bankruptcy court can preserve an issue by raising it in response to another party’s objection.

Field v. Hinahara · filed 2015-02-20(c)(1)

The court considers that reference sufficient to preserve the threshold issue, especially where the Hinaharas prevailed before the Bankruptcy Court on the legal issue — the Bankruptcy Court concluded that Kimura’s knowledge is not imputed to the Hinaharas under its interpretation of Hawaii law.

Section 157(c)(1) requires a district court to review a bankruptcy court’s proposed findings and conclusions de novo before entering a final order or judgment.

Uecker v. Wells Fargo Capital Finance, LLC · filed 2015-03-23(c)(1)

A district court reviewing a bankruptcy court’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law rendered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) shall enter a final order or judgment following de novo review.

Section 157(c)(1) requires de novo district court review of timely and specifically objected matters in a non-core proceeding; the district court may adopt the bankruptcy court’s findings after that review.

Porter Capital Corporation v. Haley · filed 2015-04-06(c)(1)

First, Rule 9033 permits a district court to “accept, reject, or modify” the Bankruptcy Court’s proposed findings, suggesting that a district court may permissibly accept those findings unmodified after a proper review. ... Accordingly, we discern no basis from which we can conclude that the District Court, despite its express statements, did not conduct a de novo review of the record as required by § 157(c)(1).

Section 157 permits a bankruptcy court’s findings and conclusions on a claim it cannot finally adjudicate to receive de novo review by the district court.

Myers v. Blumenthal · filed 2015-06-23(c)(1)

The court will treat the Bankruptcy Court’s Orders at issue as proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on the relevant issues. The court has conducted a de novo review with respect to those motions and finds the bankruptcy court’s findings and recommendations should be adopted in all respects.

Section 157(c)(1) permits objections to a bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings in a non-core proceeding and calls for district court review of the objected-to matters before entry of a final order.

Bank of America, N.A. ex rel. Estate of Veluchamy v. Veluchamy · filed 2015-08-18(c)(1)

For non-core proceedings, once the bankruptcy judge issues his proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, any party to the litigation may object to the proposed findings or conclusions. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1); Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9033(b). The district court reviews de novo any matters to which a party objects, and then enters a final order based upon the bankruptcy judge’s decision.

Section 157(c)(1) requires the district court to review de novo matters in a bankruptcy judge’s recommendation to which a party timely and specifically objects.

Land Ventures for 2, LLC v. Fritz · filed 2015-10-29(c)(1)

The court reviews de novo “those matters [in the Recommendation] to which any party has timely and specifically objected.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

When a bankruptcy court submits proposed findings and conclusions under § 157(c)(1), the district court does not sit as an appellate court.

Monge v. Rojas (In Re Monge) · filed 2016-06-14(c)(1)

Here, however, the bankruptcy court submitted only proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), so the district court did not sit as an appellate court.

In a related noncore proceeding, the district court reviews the bankruptcy court’s proposed findings de novo and enters the final judgment reviewed on appeal.

Land Ventures for 2, LLC v. Michael Aaron Fritz, Sr. · filed 2016-08-29(c)(1)

Because the district court, by entering final judgment, 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), “made the only decision there is for us to review,” In re Rasbury, 24 F.3d 159, 166 (11th Cir. 1994), we will not consider the argument of Land Ventures about errors committed by the bankruptcy court.

Under § 157(c)(1), a district court’s de novo review and final judgment can cure a bankruptcy court’s unauthorized final order in a non-core proceeding.

Kachkar v. Bank of America Corp. · filed 2019-04-11(c)(1)

However, we conclude that any error was harmless because the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court after exercising de novo review, which is the same review the court would have applied if it had expressly treated the bankruptcy court’s order as a non-final proposed ruling.

Section 157(c)(1) requires a district court to review de novo the portions of a bankruptcy court’s proposed findings and conclusions to which a party timely objects.

Sandipan Chowdhury and Booth Sweet, LLP v. Hansmeier · filed 2019-04-25(c)(1)

A district court reviews de novo those aspects of a bankruptcy court’s R&R to which timely objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9033(d).

Section 157(c)(1) requires the district court to consider the bankruptcy court’s proposed findings and conclusions, review timely and specifically objected-to matters de novo, and enter the final order or judgment.

Atna Liquidating Trust v. Elwood Staffing Services Inc. · filed 2019-08-06(c)(1)

The proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law of the bankruptcy court are subject to de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). Under § 157(c)(1), the district court must enter a final order or judgment after considering the proposed findings and conclusions of the bankruptcy court and after reviewing de novo those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected.

In a non-core proceeding, the district court reviews timely, specific objections to a bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions de novo before entering judgment.

The Containership Company (TCC) A/S v. Apex Maritime Co., Inc. · filed 2019-09-17(c)(1)

Upon receipt of a bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions, and, after reviewing de novo any matters to which a party timely and specifically objects, a district court can enter final judgments. ... After conducting the required de novo review of the record and applicable law, the Court accepts Judge Garrity’s Prposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in full.

Section 157(c)(1) permits a bankruptcy judge to submit proposed findings in a non-core proceeding related to a bankruptcy case, subject to district court review of timely, specific objections de novo.

Federal National Mortgage Association v. Cawood · filed 2019-09-30(c)(1)

A bankruptcy judge may hear a matter and submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court if the proceeding “is not a core proceeding but . . . is otherwise related to a case under title 11.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). The district court may enter a final order or judgment “after considering the bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions and after reviewing de novo those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected.” Id.

Section 157(c)(1) requires de novo review of proposed findings in a non-core proceeding only for matters to which a party timely and specifically objects.

Coudert Brothers LLP v. LI · filed 2020-01-23(c)(1)

The Bankruptcy Code also only mandates de novo review of “those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) requires the district judge to enter the final order after considering a bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions and reviewing timely, specific objections de novo.

Wizenberg v. Wizenberg · filed 2020-02-03(c)(1)

When a bankruptcy court submits proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, “any final order or judgment shall be entered by the district judge after considering the bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions and after reviewing de novo those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) requires de novo review of a bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions only as to matters a party timely and specifically objects to.

Coudert Brothers LLP v. Sullivan · filed 2020-05-04(c)(1)

The Bankruptcy Code also only mandates de novo review of “those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) requires de novo review of a bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings only on matters to which a party timely and specifically objects.

Coudert Brothers LLP v. Varanese · filed 2020-07-09(c)(1)

The Bankruptcy Code also only mandates de novo review of “those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) permits a district court to review a bankruptcy judge’s proposed damages award when a party specifically objects to that remedy, even if the district court uses a legal rationale the party did not raise.

Bavelis v. Doukas · filed 2020-10-19(c)(1)

Moreover, we have no problem finding that Doukas’s argument was sufficiently “specific[]” to present the issue for the district court. By objecting to the damages award, the district court was directed to the relevant remedy that was being challenged and to the applicable caselaw on the topic.

Section 157(c)(1) requires district court de novo review of a bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions when a party makes a specific objection.

Bavelis v. Doukas · filed 2021-01-21(c)(1)

Because a specific objection was made to the availability of punitive damages, this Court will proceed with de novo review of this portion of the bankruptcy judge’s determination, consistent with Section 157(c) and Bankruptcy Rule 9033(d).

Section 157(c)(1) provides for district court review of proposed findings and conclusions when a bankruptcy judge cannot enter final judgment on a non-core claim.

Patterson v. Mahwah Bergen Retail Group, Inc. · filed 2022-01-13(c)(1)

Having determined that the Bankruptcy Court violated Stern by exceeding its authority, the Court must vacate the Confirmation Order and treat it as a Report and Recommendation with proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which the Court reviews de novo.

Section 157 does not give a bankruptcy court discretion to transfer a matter within its jurisdiction to the district court.

Robinson v. Wilburton Village Apartments, LP · filed 2022-02-28

A bankruptcy court, as subordinate to the district court, does not possess discretion to transfer matters within its vested jurisdiction to district court.

Section 157(c)(1) requires a district court to review timely and specifically objected-to matters in a bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions de novo.

LTDA v. Alina Corporation · filed 2022-03-03(c)(1)

The Court may enter an order on the basis of the Bankruptcy Court’s PFFCL “after reviewing de novo those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected.” 28 U.S.C. 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy court to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court for a non-core proceeding related to a bankruptcy case.

GRUVER v. KINCAID · filed 2022-05-12(c)(1)

Once a bankruptcy court determines that a pending matter is not a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) but is nonetheless related to a case under title 11, it shall submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court.

Section 157(c)(1) requires the district court to review timely, specific objections to a bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions in a non-core proceeding de novo.

PNC Bank, N.A. v. Davis · filed 2022-09-29(c)(1)

Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9033(d), this Court’s task is to “make a de novo review upon the record or, after additional evidence, of any portion of the bankruptcy judge’s findings of fact or conclusions of law to which specific written objection has been made in accordance with this rule.” ... See also 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1) (“In [a non-core but related proceeding], the bankruptcy judge shall submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, and any final order or judgment shall be entered by the district judge after considering the bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions and after reviewing de novo those matters to which any party has timely and spectfically objected.”).

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy judge in a related proceeding without the parties’ consent to final judgment to submit proposed findings and conclusions; the district judge enters judgment after reviewing timely, specific objections de novo.

Feltman v. Tri-State Employment Service, Inc. · filed 2023-03-14(c)(1)

Where a proceeding is “otherwise related to a case under title 11,” and the parties have not consented to entry of final judgment by the Bankruptcy Court, the Bankruptcy Court “shall submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, and any final order or judgment shall be entered by the district judge after considering the bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions and after reviewing de novo those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy judge in a noncore proceeding to submit proposed findings and conclusions to the district court, which enters the final judgment after reviewing timely, specific objections de novo.

In Re: Garden Fresh Restaurants, LLC · filed 2022-09-20(c)(1)

In a noncore proceeding, such as this one, the bankruptcy judge “shall submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1). “[A]ny final order or judgment shall be entered by the district judge after considering the bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions and after reviewing de novo those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected.”

Section 157(c)(1) allows a bankruptcy court to submit proposed findings for a district court to decide after reviewing specific objections de novo.

O'FLYNN v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION · filed 2024-05-31(c)(1)

Moreover, it finds that the Bankruptcy Court's approach of issuing a Report and Recommendation, rather than issuing an opinion and entering judgment, alleviates any jurisdictional concerns because the parties have had an opportunity to object to the Report and Recommendation and this Court is reviewing the Report and Recommendation and deciding the pending Objection de novo.

Section 157(c)(1) requires a bankruptcy judge to submit proposed findings in a non-core proceeding for the district judge to consider before entering a final order, with de novo review of timely, specific objections.

Davis v. American Education Services LLC · filed 2024-06-21(c)(1)

To resolve those non-core issues, “the bankruptcy judge [must] submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, and any final order or judgment [must] be entered by the district judge after considering the bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions and after reviewing de novo those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected.” ... Neither party objected to the bankruptcy court’s recommendation, and the deadline to do so has passed. I find that the recommendation to dismiss Davis’s unjust-enrichment, FCRA, and NDTPA claims is legally correct.

Section 157(c)(1) requires a district court to review de novo the portions of a bankruptcy court’s proposed findings and conclusions to which a party objects.

Halperin v. Wills · filed 2024-08-13(c)(1)

The Court conducts a de novo review of the R. & R.’s proposed findings and conclusions that pertain to the Objection.

Section 157 does not authorize a bankruptcy court to prevent a district court from considering legal arguments on appeal.

Fox v. Picard · filed 2012-03-26

Nevertheless, it is plain that a bankruptcy court lacks the power to prevent a district court from considering legal arguments on appeal. No such power is specified in the jurisdictional statutes related to bankruptcy proceedings.

When a bankruptcy court submits proposed findings under § 157(c)(1), the court of appeals reviews the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.

Lowe v. Gammon · filed 2023-01-13(c)(1)

Here, however, “the bankruptcy court submitted only proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).” Id. (emphasis in original). “Unlike the district court, then, this court does not review the bankruptcy court’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law de novo but, instead, we review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.” Id.

Section 157(c)(1) calls for de novo district court review of a bankruptcy court’s report and recommendation.

IMAGE MASTERS, INC. v. CHASE HOME FINANCE · filed 2024-09-06(c)(1)

My review of the Bankruptcy Court’s Report and Recommendation is de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).

Section 157(d) did not require permissive withdrawal when the moving party failed to establish its applicability.

Reginald Darnell Holmes · filed 2025-10-15(d)

For the foregoing reasons, the Court determines that Mr. Holmes has failed to establish that the permissive withdrawal prong of 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) applies to this matter.

A motion to withdraw a bankruptcy reference under § 157(d) becomes moot when the bankruptcy court has already resolved the proceeding the movant seeks to withdraw.

In Re: U Lock, Inc v. · filed 2025-09-30(d)

The resolution of Biros’s objection by the Bankruptcy Court meant the District Court was unable to grant the relief requested by Snyder in her motion to withdraw the reference of Biros’s objection. Snyder’s § 157(d) motion was thus moot in the ordinary constitutional sense.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to defer withdrawing a bankruptcy reference until after the bankruptcy court handles pretrial matters, even when a jury trial warrants withdrawal for trial.

In Re: Robert E. Meachem · filed 2025-04-11(d)

The Court thus finds that the Trustee is entitled to a trial by jury under the Seventh Amendment as to the malpractice action and that the reference should be withdrawn. ... District courts routinely deny the motion to withdraw the reference but allow the bankruptcy court to supervise all pretrial and discovery matters and to develop the case for trial. ... IT IS ORDERED that the Trustee’s request for a jury trial is GRANTED and the Motion to Withdraw the Reference is DENIED at this time.

A motion to withdraw a bankruptcy reference under § 157(d) becomes moot when the adversary proceeding is dismissed.

Hayden v. Western Steel Inc. · filed 2025-03-14(d)

However, a bankruptcy court order dismissing an adversary proceeding moots a motion to withdraw the reference as to that adversary proceeding.

Section 157(d) does not provide cause to withdraw a bankruptcy reference based on a possible future dispute over compliance with an injunction.

In re: Akoustis Technologies, Inc. · filed 2025-01-29(d)

Absent a concrete dispute over enforcement of the Permanent Injunction, however, no cause exists for this Court to interject itself into the chapter 11 sale process.

A motion to withdraw a bankruptcy reference under § 157(d) becomes moot when the underlying proceeding is dismissed.

47 Spy Glass Hill Corp. v. United States Trustee · filed 2023-09-11(d)

Put differently, once the underlying proceeding is dismissed, “there remains no matter” for Debtor to withdraw. ... Accordingly, Debtor’s Motion for Withdrawal of Reference is dismissed as moot.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to defer withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference until trial even when a party may have a right to a jury trial.

In Re Lindemuth v. Lloyd & MacLaughlin LLC · filed 2022-02-08(d)

This Court agrees that the motion for immediate transfer should be denied. Even if Plaintiff retained a right to a jury trial on the issues raised in the adversary action, this Court would agree with the Recommendation that under the circumstances of the case, withdrawal of reference would be premature.

Section 157(b)(2)(G) treats motions concerning an automatic stay as core proceedings, and section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a reference for cause shown.

LTL MANAGEMENT LLC v. THOSE PARTIES LISTED ON APPENDIX A TO COMPLAINT · filed 2022-01-21(b)(2)(G), (d)

Here, the Adversary Proceeding is a “core” proceeding. The non-exclusive examples of “core” proceedings listed in section 157 include “motions to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G). By extension, “motions to enforce the automatic stay are [also] core proceedings.” ... Because the Adversary Proceeding, which involves the issuance and extension of an automatic stay and injunction pursuant to sections 362 and 105, qualifies as a core bankruptcy proceeding, there is a “presumption against withdrawal of the reference.”

Section 157(d) requires cause to withdraw a bankruptcy reference; non-core claims alone do not overcome the presumption favoring adjudication in bankruptcy court.

Superior Contracting Group, Inc. v. Rachmale · filed 2019-09-24(d)

Here, Superior has failed to demonstrate any “contravening policy” which rebuts the presumption created by section 157(d) that this non-core proceeding – which the Bankruptcy Court has found to be a “related to” proceeding – should be adjudicated in bankruptcy court.

Section 157(d) does not require immediate withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference merely because a party has a right to a jury trial.

Burleigh v. Hometown Credit, LLC · filed 2017-07-18(d)

Further, the fact that defendant has a right to a jury trial on plaintiffs’ claims does not necessarily warrant withdrawal of the reference at this point.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to leave pretrial matters with the bankruptcy court and defer withdrawal until a jury trial is ripe when doing so promotes judicial economy and timely resolution.

SNMP Research International, Inc. v. Nortel Networks, Inc. (In re Nortel Networks, Inc.) · filed 2015-09-09(d)

The Court concludes that consideration of all of the appropriate factors favors denying SNMP’s Motion at this time. Permitting the Bankruptcy Court to oversee pretrial, matters in this proceeding, and withdrawing it only when it is ripe for a jury trial, promotes judicial economy and a timely resolution of this case.

Section 157(d) requires a party seeking withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that withdrawal is warranted; judicial efficiency bears on that decision.

Residential Funding Co. v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (In re Residential Capital, LLC) · filed 2014-09-24(d)

In sum, although the question is close, this Court concludes that considerations of the efficient allocation of judicial resources outweigh Greenpoint’s arguments in favor of withdrawal of the reference, such that Greenpoint has not carried its burden to prove that withdrawal is warranted by a preponderance of the evidence.

A pending motion to withdraw the reference under § 157(d) does not divest the bankruptcy court of jurisdiction.

Merrimac Paper Co. v. Eggert (In Re Merrimac Paper Co.) · filed 2003-11-07(d)

The mere pendency of a motion to withdraw, however, does not divest a bankruptcy court of jurisdiction.

Section 157(d) requires mandatory withdrawal only when resolving the proceeding calls for substantial and material consideration of nonbankruptcy federal law.

TPI International Airways, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Administration (In Re TPI International Airways, Inc.) · filed 1998-05-13(d)

The Court finds that the “substantial and material” test should be utilized to determine when mandatory withdrawal is appropriate. ... The mere implication of non-bankruptcy federal law in the proceedings is not sufficient to mandate withdrawal; the resolution of non-bankruptcy law must be essential to the dispute.

Section 157(b)(3) does not require a district court to await the bankruptcy judge’s core or non-core determination before considering withdrawal of the reference based on a party’s right to a jury trial.

Styler v. Jean Bob Inc. (In Re Concept Clubs, Inc.) · filed 1993-05-10(b)(3)

In conclusion, this court need not await the bankruptcy court’s determination of the nature of this adversary proceeding under 28 U.S.C. section 157(b)(3) if Jean Bob grounds its Motion to Withdraw the Reference on its Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal when resolving a proceeding calls for substantial and material consideration of non-Bankruptcy Code federal law; routine application of that law does not require withdrawal.

In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc. · filed 1991-10-29(d)

It is true that the district court, not the bankruptcy court, has jurisdiction to decide cases against a debtor whose resolution requires substantial and material consideration of non-Code statutes. ... In this case, the Bankruptcy Court correctly concluded that it has the power to determine the parties’ underlying dispute. Resolution of ALPA’s claims will not require that the bankruptcy court “engage itself in the intricacies of the RLA.”

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding merely because a constitutional question may arise after the bankruptcy court decides a factual issue; that question can be raised on appeal.

Edward Pirsig Farms, Inc. v. John Deere Co. (In Re Edward Pirsig Farms, Inc.) · filed 1984-08-06(d)

Deere’s sole basis for requesting withdrawal is its contention that the bankruptcy court may be required to consider the constitutionality of a provision of the bankruptcy code. Deere’s constitutional challenge, however, arises only if the bankruptcy court determines that the application of 11 U.S.C. § 544 to its liens requires their avoidance. The bankruptcy court is clearly in the best position to make this factual determination. Should the bankruptcy court’s determination raise constitutional questions, Deere will have the opportunity to raise such issues upon appeal to the district court. Given these circumstances, Deere has failed to show cause why this matter should be withdrawn from the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(d) allows a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference on its own motion or a party’s motion before the bankruptcy judge renders a final decision.

Danning v. Lummis (In Re Tom Carter Enterprises, Inc.) · filed 1984-12-07(d)

The district court also retains the power to withdraw any proceeding on its own motion or on the motion of any party. 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). This withdrawal power of the district court may be exercised at any time before a final decision has been rendered by the bankruptcy judge.

Section 157(d) requires a party seeking withdrawal of the reference to act promptly after receiving notice of the matter it seeks to withdraw.

Matter of Baldwin United Corp. · filed 1984-10-19(d)

Based upon the chronology of events stated above, which are largely confirmed by the stipulations of counsel, (August 16, 1984 Tr. 22-42), we have no difficulty in concluding that the Shareholders’ motion was untimely as a matter of fact under § 157(d). Counsel for the Shareholders was on notice since at least June 28 that the Debtors intended to file their motion sometime in July, and received notice of the motion shortly after it was filed.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause; jurisdiction shared with its bankruptcy court does not itself establish cause.

United States v. LeBouf Bros. Towing Co., Inc. · filed 1985-01-18(d)

Section 157(d) of title 28 United States Code now provides that a district court may for cause remove from the bankruptcy court any part of a case or proceeding referred pursuant to § 157(a). ... Consequently, the bankruptcy court has no jurisdictional authority independent of this court; hence, there is no conflict of jurisdiction in this case. ... The United States has not demonstrated any cause for me to withdraw this court’s reference of Le-Bouf’s title 11 case to the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding when resolving it requires substantial and material consideration of both Title 11 and federal laws regulating interstate commerce.

Michigan Milk Producers Ass'n v. Hunter · filed 1985-01-23(d)

Accordingly, this record supports an affirmative determination that resolution of the instant adversary proceeding would require consideration of both Title 11 and non-bankruptcy federal statutes regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce. Withdrawal of reference is, therefore, mandatory under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) allows a district court to withdraw a referred bankruptcy proceeding; allowing the trustee to intervene can effect that withdrawal.

Carlton v. Baww, Inc. · filed 1985-01-28(d)

The 1984 Act makes clear that the opposite is true: section 157(d) provides that a district court "may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding referred" to the bankruptcy judges of the district. By allowing trustee intervention, the district court effectively withdrew this matter from the bankruptcy judge to whom it otherwise would have been automatically referred for disposition by the blanket order.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a core proceeding from the bankruptcy court for cause.

WSC Corp. v. International Harvester Co. (In Re Wisconsin Steel Co.) · filed 1985-03-06(d)

The plain language of this provision permits withdrawal of a core proceeding, and the courts which have addressed the question have so held.

Section 157(b)(3) assigns the core proceeding determination to the bankruptcy judge; an assertion that a proceeding is non-core alone does not justify withdrawal under § 157(d) before that determination.

Fisher v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania (In Re Pied Piper Casuals, Inc.) · filed 1985-03-21(b)(3)

While § 157(d) allows a district judge to withdraw a referral for “cause shown,” to permit such a withdrawal at this stage on the sole ground that the proceeding is non-core would disregard the provisions of § 157(b)(3) by removing the decision as to whether an action is a core proceeding from the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(d) requires a motion for mandatory withdrawal to be filed as soon as practicable after it becomes clear that the proceeding implicates the specified federal laws.

Boyajian v. DeFusco (In Re Giorgio) · filed 1985-01-31(d)

The petition for withdrawal was not seasonably filed as required by 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). It is DENIED and DISMISSED.

Section 157(d) motions to withdraw a bankruptcy reference must be made to the district court.

In Re Towner Petroleum Co. · filed 1985-04-10(d)

With respect to the movants assertion that the instant proceeding is subject to mandatory withdrawal, we initially note that motions pursuant to § 157(d) are to be made to the district court.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding involving both Title 11 and federal laws regulating activities affecting interstate commerce.

Global International Airways Corp. v. Engen (In Re Global International Airways Corporation, ) · filed 1985-04-18(d)

This court summarily withdrew the matter from the bankruptcy judge, being of the view that a duty of withdrawal was apparent because the proceeding involves “both Title 11 and other laws of the United States regulating organization or activities affecting interstate commerce.”

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when resolving the proceeding calls for substantial and material consideration of federal laws regulating activities affecting interstate commerce.

United States v. ILCO, Inc. (In Re ILCO, Inc.) · filed 1985-05-10(d)

But that provision will mandate withdrawal of this case only if this court can make an affirmative determination that resolution of the U.S.’s complaint will require substantial and material consideration of the CWA, RCRA, CERCLA and the federal regulations issued thereunder. This court is convinced that these federal statutes are not merely incidental to that resolution of the complaint, but rather are essential to the resolution.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy court reference for cause shown; a resolved constitutional question and the need to apply state law did not establish cause here.

Ram Construction Co. v. Port Authority of Allegheny County · filed 1985-05-14(d)

We have earlier addressed the constitutional questions raised, and since Bankruptcy Courts routinely decide matters involving state law in deciding applicable state law defenses, we do not believe that PAT has shown cause for their motion to withdraw. It will therefore be denied.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause when the bankruptcy court has no greater relevant expertise and prompt resolution is needed.

National Mediation Board v. Continental Airlines Corp. (In Re Continental Airlines Corp.) · filed 1985-05-31(d)

Regardless of whether that delay constitutes sufficient untimeliness to defeat mandatory withdrawal, however, this Court concludes that the Bankruptcy Court’s having no more relevant factual or legal expertise than this Court, coupled with the special need for an expeditious and dispositive ruling on this NMB issue, constitutes ample cause to withdraw the reference.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw the reference of an adversary proceeding from bankruptcy court.

Wooten v. USA, Ex Rel. Department of the Interior · filed 1985-07-01(d)

The United States of America, on behalf of the DOI, now moves to withdraw the reference of this adversary proceeding from the bankruptcy court to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). ... Accordingly, the United States’ motion to withdraw the reference of this matter from the bankruptcy court to this Court, being unopposed, is hereby granted.

Section 157(d) generally leaves a referred proceeding with the bankruptcy court for initial review unless there is a substantial reason to withdraw it.

Boatman v. C v. Industries, Inc. · filed 1985-07-24(d)

Unless there is some substantial reason why the adversary proceeding should be withdrawn, the matter should be reviewed first by the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of the reference when resolving the proceeding does not require consideration of federal statutes regulating activities affecting interstate commerce; “federal laws” means federal statutes.

In Re Continental Air Lines, Inc. · filed 1985-09-10(d)

This Court has previously held, and reaffirms here, that it does not believe that Continental’s motion for partial summary judgment presents issues whose resolution requires the consideration of federal laws regulating activities affecting interstate commerce within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). The Court here interprets the phrase “federal laws” to mean “federal statutes”.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal from the bankruptcy court when consideration of other federal statutes is necessary to resolve the proceeding.

Tedesco v. Mishkin · filed 1985-09-24(d)

Although plaintiffs allege that the sale of the property may implicate other federal laws, this court does not find that considerations of other non-Bankruptey federal statutes are necessary for the resolution of the issue whether the bankruptcy judge may order sale of the property.

Section 157(d) requires mandatory withdrawal only when resolving the proceeding requires substantial and material consideration of non-bankruptcy federal law.

In Re Baldwin-United Corp. · filed 1985-09-27(d)

Our second reason for denying claimants’ motion is that resolution of their claims against Baldwin by the bankruptcy court does not require withdrawal because its resolution will not necessarily require substantial and material consideration of non-bankruptcy federal law.

Section 157(d) allows a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy case’s reference to the bankruptcy court.

Maine Associates v. United States (In Re Morahan) · filed 1985-10-02(d)

Even though Morahan’s bankruptcy case was referred to the Bankruptcy Court, this Court retains power to revoke reference pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) does not compel withdrawal when resolving the proceeding requires no consideration of a federal law regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce.

Zurkowsky v. Government Development Bank for P.R. · filed 1985-08-30(d)

Likewise, since resolution of the present proceeding does not require any consideration of a law of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce, withdrawal pursuant to Section 157(d) of Title 28 U.S. C.A. is not compelled.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding when resolving it requires substantial and material consideration of another federal law regulating activities affecting interstate commerce.

Levine v. Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund (In Re Ottawa Cartage, Inc.) · filed 1985-11-08(d)

Resolution of this adversary proceeding plainly necessitates “substantial and material consideration” of ERISÁ § 1103(c)(1). Section 157(d) mandates a withdrawal of reference.

Section 157(d) requires a district court that retains a referred bankruptcy proceeding to determine whether cause supports withdrawing the reference.

Holland America Insurance Company v. Succession of Shepherd J. Roy, the Union Bank and Central Pecan Shelling Company, I · filed 1985-12-04(d)

Nevertheless, the district court’s decision to hear a case like the present one, which will adjudicate the rights of the debtor and its creditors to insurance policy proceeds, must be based on a sound, articulated foundation. On remand, the district court must decide whether it is withdrawing the reference “for cause,” 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), or transferring the case to the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(d) permits a bankruptcy judge to direct withdrawal of reference sua sponte when resolving the proceeding requires consideration of non-bankruptcy federal claims.

Derryberry v. Toledo Trust Co. (In Re Hartley) · filed 1985-12-05(d)

Therefore, because it is necessary to consider the Trustee’s “RICO” claims for complete resolution of the instant adversary action withdrawal of reference is mandatory under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). Furthermore, in accordance with § 157(d), the notion of judicial economy and to prevent inconsistent decisions this Court finds that it has the right sua sponte to direct withdrawal of reference and transfer this proceeding to the United States District Court.

Section 157(d) calls for withdrawal of a referred proceeding when resolving it requires consideration of both title 11 and a federal law regulating activities affecting interstate commerce; a motion for relief may be treated as a withdrawal request based on its substance.

In Re Bennett Paper Corp. · filed 1985-12-13(d)

Given that ADEA is a law of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce and that Debtor admits that it is an organization within the purview of ADEA, it follows that were the Commission to file a motion with the district court to withdraw from this Court the hearing of its claim, that motion would have to be granted. While technically the Commission has not filed such a motion, it would be elevating form over substance not to construe the Commission’s motion for relief as having the same effect. ... The Court, therefore, concludes that to the extent that the Commission’s claim for back pay, liquidated damages, interest or costs needs to be liquidated, the district court and not this Court is the appropriate forum.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for judicial economy even when the proceeding may be core.

Enviro-Scope Corp. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. (In Re Enviro-Scope Corp.) · filed 1985-12-17(d)

In any event, the outcome would not be different even if the collection of an account receivable was determined to be a core proceeding within the meaning of the Act, for my decision to withdraw the adversary proceeding from the bankruptcy court is based primarily on considerations of judicial economy and not on the nature of the proceedings.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when resolving the proceeding requires consideration of both Title 11 and federal law regulating activities affecting interstate commerce.

Block v. Anthony Tammaro, Inc. (In Re Anthony Tammaro, Inc.) · filed 1986-01-16(d)

§ 157(d), by its very terms, permits withdrawal of any case or proceeding “for cause shown” and mandates withdrawal if the resolution of the proceeding requires consideration of both Title 11 and non-Code federal law regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce.

Section 157(d) requires cause for discretionary withdrawal of a proceeding referred to the bankruptcy court.

Mattingly v. Newport Offshore, Ltd. · filed 1986-01-23(d)

In endeavoring to postulate the “cause” that § 157(d) contemplates, however, Mat-tingly has come up close to empty.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of the reference when resolving a motion does not require direct interpretation or application of a federal statute regulating interstate commerce.

In Re Continental Airlines Corp. · filed 1986-02-12(d)

This Court has jurisdiction to resolve on the merits the liability issues presented by the Debtors’ motion for summary judgment because the motion does not require direct interpretation or application of the statutory language of the Railway Labor Act or any other federal statute regulating interstate commerce.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference merely because federal tax or securities laws are tangentially related to the claims.

In Re Mandalay Shores Co-Op. Housing Ass'n Inc. · filed 1986-02-18(d)

Although federal tax and securities laws may be tangentially related to these determinations, resolution of these issues does not require consideration of both bankruptcy laws and other federal laws regulating organizations affecting interstate commerce.

Section 157(d) does not allow withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference merely because related issues are pending in district court when the proceeding falls within the bankruptcy court’s expertise.

In Re AKF Foods, Inc. · filed 1986-03-24(d)

The Court concludes that the fact that there are related issues in a case before this Court does not constitute sufficient cause to withdraw from the Bankruptcy Court a proceeding which falls within the Bankruptcy Court’s area of expertise.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a non-core proceeding for judicial economy when a jury trial in bankruptcy court could have to be repeated in district court.

Interconnect Telephone Services, Inc. v. Farren · filed 1986-04-03(d)

As set forth above, I have concluded that considerations of judicial economy warrant my withdrawing the reference of this action from the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of the reference when resolving a bankruptcy claim does not require direct interpretation or application of a federal law regulating interstate commerce.

In re Continental Airlines Corp. · filed 1986-04-11(d)

The Court is satisfied that it has jurisdiction to resolve on the merits the liability issues presented by the present motion, for the motion does not require direct interpretation or application of the statutory language of the Railway Labor Act or any other federal statute regulating interstate commerce, and therefore § 157(d) of the 28 U.S.G. is deemed inapplicable here.

Section 157(d) gives the district court authority to decide whether to withdraw the reference of a bankruptcy matter.

Wayne Film Systems Corp. v. Film Recovery Systems Corp. · filed 1986-05-14(d)

Under § 157(d), it is the district court which determines whether a matter should be withdrawn.

Section 157 permits a district court to withdraw the reference for cause when a counterclaim is substantially unlike the matters typically handled in administering a bankruptcy estate, even if the counterclaim is a core proceeding.

Judge v. Ridley & Schweigert (In Re Leedy Mortgage Co.) · filed 1986-06-03(d)

Nevertheless, other factors here weigh heavily in favor of withdrawal of reference. The most fundamental reason is that, in spite of 28 U.S.C. § 157, the trustee’s counterclaim is a matter very different from matters included in the typical administration of a bankrupt estate. ... For these reasons, the court granted defendants’ motions to withdraw the reference for cause shown.