28 U.S.C. § 157

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

Nicola v. BarclaysAmerican/Business Credit, Inc. (In re Inland Manufacturing Co.) · filed 1986-06-20(d)

As a result, this Court shall upon its own motion withdraw reference of the adversary proceeding from the Bankruptcy Court for cause shown pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal when resolving a bankruptcy proceeding calls for significant interpretation of federal law regulating interstate commerce alongside bankruptcy law.

United States v. Johns-Manville Corp. (In Re Johns-Manville Corp.) · filed 1986-08-05(d)

It is issues requiring significant interpretation of federal laws that Congress would have intended to have decided by a district judge rather than a bankruptcy judge. ... It therefore seems quite clear that this controversy falls within the category of cases mandatorily withdrawn from the Bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction by § 157(d), in that it “requires consideration of both title 11 and other laws of the United States regulating ... interstate commerce.”

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause, considering convenience, judicial economy, and the court’s knowledge of the facts.

Matter of Dunes Casino Hotel · filed 1986-08-21(d)

Among the factors to consider in determining whether “cause” exists to withdraw reference are convenience, judicial economy and a particular court’s knowledge of the facts.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a referred adversary proceeding while the underlying bankruptcy case remains with the bankruptcy court when resolving the proceeding requires consideration of both title 11 and federal laws regulating interstate commerce.

Burger King Corp. v. B-K of Kansas, Inc. · filed 1986-08-29(d)

In the present situation, adversarial Case No. 85-0058 constitutes a “proceeding” within the bankruptcy “case.” It is therefore proper to withdraw this proceeding while leaving intact the original referral of the bankruptcy petitions to the bankruptcy court. Resolution of the adversarial proceeding will require consideration of both title 11 and other federal laws regulating activities affecting interstate commerce, and under section 157(d), the proceeding is properly transferable to this court.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal when resolving a bankruptcy proceeding calls for substantial and material consideration of both the Bankruptcy Code and a federal law affecting interstate commerce.

Carter Day Industries, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (In Re Combustion Equipment Associates, Inc · filed 1986-11-24(d)

Since resolution of this proceeding requires substantial and material consideration of CERCLA, a federal statute affecting interstate commerce, in tandem with consideration of the Bankruptcy Code, withdrawal of this proceeding from the bankruptcy court is required pursuant to section 157(d).

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of the bankruptcy court reference for a core proceeding concerning whether a lease was terminated before bankruptcy.

Harlem-Irving Realty, Inc. v. Wieboldt Stores, Inc. (In Re Wieboldt Stores, Inc.) · filed 1986-12-02(d)

On December 9, 1986 Judge DeWitt will try the issue whether Harlem-Irving terminated its lease before Wieboldt’s filed for bankruptcy; this proceeding is a “core proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). Therefore, § 157(d) does not require this court to withdraw its reference.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withhold all or part of a bankruptcy case or proceeding referred to a bankruptcy court.

In Re Diana R. Beard, (Two Cases) · filed 1987-02-11(d)

The order itself is consistent with and authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), which expressly provides that the district court may withhold in whole or in part any bankruptcy case or proceeding referred to a bankruptcy court.

Section 157(d) requires a party to move to withdraw a bankruptcy reference as soon as possible after learning of the grounds for withdrawal.

Central Illinois Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Rittenberg Co. (In Re IQ Telecommunications, Inc.) · filed 1987-02-06(d)

We agree that a motion under § 157(d) should be made as soon as possible after the moving party has notice of the grounds for withdrawing the reference. ... The motion is therefore denied as untimely.

The court reads § 157(d) to require mandatory abstention when resolving a proceeding requires consideration of both Title 11 and federal laws regulating interstate commerce.

In Re Cache, Inc. · filed 1987-03-12(d)

28 U.S.C. § 157(d) requires mandatory abstention: “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.” The debtor concedes that the statute upon which this creditor travels was enacted under the commerce clause; therefore, mandatory abstention is appropriate.

Section 157(d) requires a motion for mandatory withdrawal of the reference to be brought in district court; a bankruptcy judge cannot issue a proposed decision on it.

Matter of Hawkeye Chemical Co. · filed 1987-03-30(d)

Therefore, this court concludes it does not have jurisdiction to render a proposed decision concerning mandatory withdrawal of the reference. A motion for withdrawal of the reference must be brought in the district court.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a non-core proceeding for cause when a party is entitled to a jury trial that the bankruptcy court is not authorized to conduct.

Pied Piper Casuals, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania · filed 1987-04-03(d)

Since the procedures governing non-core proceedings are antithetical to a Congressional intent to authorize jury trials in such proceedings and in the absence of any direct authorization, the Bankruptcy Court is not authorized to conduct a jury trial in this non-core proceeding. The necessity of preserving ICSP’s right to a jury trial constitutes good cause for withdrawal under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) requires a case involving bankruptcy claims and substantial RICO claims to remain in district court when resolving it requires close consideration of the RICO claims.

Rubin Bros. Footwear v. Chemical Bank (In Re Rubin Bos. Footwear) · filed 1987-04-10(d)

Title 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) dictates when a district court may properly withdraw a reference to bankruptcy court and governs in this case where plaintiff seeks in essence to re-refer this case to bankruptcy court. ... The full resolution of this case clearly mandates close consideration of plaintiffs' RICO claims, and the case must remain in district court. Defendants’ motion to remove the case to bankruptcy court is thus denied.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference on a timely party motion or the district court’s own motion.

Eisenberg v. Bank of New York (In Re Sattler's, Inc.) · filed 1987-05-01(d)

We begin by rejecting defendant’s argument that the three proposed RICO claims should be disallowed because this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain them under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). ... Section 157(d) of title 28, upon which defendant relies, sets the standard for determining when the district court has discretion or is mandated to withdraw its reference of a case or proceeding. That determination is to be made either on timely motion of a party or on the district court’s own motion.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause when a party properly demands a jury trial in a non-core proceeding.

Doyle v. Mellon Bank (East) National Ass'n (In Re Globe Parcel Service, Inc.) · filed 1987-05-13(d)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), the reference may be withdrawn for "cause”. Implicitly, the February 23, 1987 memorandum recognized a proper jury demand in a non-core proceeding as "cause” for withdrawal under § 157(d).

Section 157(d)’s mandatory withdrawal provision is construed narrowly and applies when resolving a bankruptcy proceeding requires substantial and material consideration of nonbankruptcy federal statutes.

Boricua Motors Corp. v. Tamachi, Inc. · filed 1987-08-20(d)

The Court is mindful that the mandatory withdrawal provision of Section 157(d) is to be construed narrowly so that it does not become an “escape hatch” for matters properly before the bankruptcy court. Resolution of the issues involved in these proceedings, however, fall within a narrow reading of Section 157(d).

An order granting or denying withdrawal of a bankruptcy court reference under § 157(d) is not a final appealable order, whether withdrawal is mandatory or discretionary.

In Re Chateaugay Corporation, Reomar, Inc., the Ltv Corporation, Debtors · filed 1987-08-17(d)

We thus also reject PBGC’s claim that orders under the mandatory portion of Section 157(d) are appealable, whereas orders under the discretionary portion are not. Although the distinction between the mandatory and discretionary portions of Section 157(d) surely dictates the scope of appellate review of the respective decisions, it is in no way pertinent to the question of whether either type of order is final or interlocutory.

Section 157(d) permits discretionary withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when overlapping facts, transactions, and issues provide good cause for consolidation with a district court case.

Wedtech Corp. v. London (In Re Wedtech Corp.) · filed 1987-11-18(d)

We find that the overlapping of facts, transactions, and issues in the two cases, described below, is good cause for withdrawal of the reference and consolidation with the district court proceeding.

Section 157(d) requires a party to seek withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding before pursuing the same action in district court.

Johnson v. Philadelphia Electric Co. · filed 1987-11-19(d)

At the outset, we note that plaintiff did not file a motion with this court to withdraw his case from the bankruptcy court for this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). Having elected to proceed with his action for a preliminary injunction in the bankruptcy court for this district, plaintiff cannot simultaneously proceed in this court with the identical action brought in bankruptcy court.

Section 157(d) provides the procedure for a district court to withdraw a case or proceeding referred to a bankruptcy judge.

In Re Wonder Corp. of America · filed 1988-01-20(d)

Under the congressional scheme, once a case or a proceeding has been referred to the bankruptcy judges of a district, 28 U.S. C. § 157(d) provides the only procedure for the withdrawal of that reference.

Section 157(d) allows a local rule to require a withdrawal motion to be filed in bankruptcy court for forwarding to a district judge.

54TH & HARPER v. Southmark Corp. · filed 1988-02-09(d)

This court is of the opinion that Local Rule B-106 is complementary with 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) and Bankruptcy Rule 5011(a). While section 157(d) of title 28 and Bankruptcy Rule 5011(a) provide that a district judge shall hear a withdrawal motion, Local Rule B-106 provides the administrative procedure to forward a withdrawal motion to the district court. Consequently, plaintiffs’ motion is not properly before this court.

A motion to withdraw a bankruptcy proceeding under § 157(d) may be subject to local procedures requiring filing with the bankruptcy clerk before it is forwarded to the district court.

Assmus v. Southmark Corp. · filed 1988-02-09(d)

This court is of the opinion that Local Rule B-106 is complementary with 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) and Bankruptcy Rule 5011(a). While section 157(d) of title 28 and Bankruptcy Rule 5011(a) provide that a district judge shall hear a withdrawal motion, Local Rule B-106 provides the administrative procedure to forward a withdrawal motion to the district court. Consequently, plaintiffs’ motion is not properly before this court.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference nunc pro tunc, defeating an objection that the reference had not been formally withdrawn when the court acted.

Barona Group of the Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians v. American Management & Amusement, Inc. · filed 1988-03-17(d)

AMA next contends the district court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the Band’s summary judgment motion because it did not formally withdraw its reference of the case under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) (Supp. Ill 1985) to the bankruptcy court. We disagree. ... On June 22, 1987, the district court partially withdrew the reference of this case under Chapter 11 nunc pro tunc to September 15, 1986, to determine the issue of the validity of the tribal bingo management agreement. ... Thus, AMA’s claim necessarily fails.

Section 157(d) requires a timely motion to withdraw a bankruptcy reference, measured from when the movant could determine that federal nonbankruptcy law provided grounds for withdrawal.

Lowin v. Dayton Securities Associates (In Re Securities Group 1980) · filed 1988-03-23(d)

A threshold issue in application of § 157(d) is the timeliness of the motion to withdraw the reference. ... Defendants were able to intelligently determine that the proceeding could be withdrawn at the time that they asserted the counterclaims and affirmative defenses which relied on federal securities law. Timeliness must be measured from that date.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when applying another federal statute is routine rather than substantial and material; discretionary withdrawal requires good cause.

In Re Texaco Inc. · filed 1988-04-05(d)

If the NGPA must be referred to for purposes of setting royalties, it would be a straightforward application of a federal statute to the leases in question. The only aspect that makes application of the Act at all difficult is the shifting nature of the State’s arguments with respect to it. It is the import of the State’s arguments and not the application of the statute that is complex. We agree, therefore, that the reference need not be withdrawn as a matter of law and, finally, that no good cause for discretionary revocation has been demonstrated.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding when its resolution requires substantial and material consideration of another federal law regulating interstate commerce.

American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Chateaugay Corp. · filed 1988-04-22(d)

By enacting § 157(d), Congress determined that a district court of general federal jurisdiction shall be the forum for substantial and material conflicts between the Bankruptcy Code and other federal laws.

Section 157 permits a district court to withdraw the reference of an adversary proceeding from bankruptcy court and conduct further proceedings itself.

Carr v. Michigan Real Estate Insurance Trust (In Re Michigan Real Estate Insurance Trust) · filed 1988-04-26(d)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the reference of this Court’s jurisdiction to the Bankruptcy Court to hear this adversary proceeding, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) is hereby withdrawn. All further proceedings in this adversary proceeding shall occur in the District Court.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when resolving the proceeding requires substantial consideration of both Title 11 and federal civil rights law.

Anthony v. Baker (In Re Baker) · filed 1988-04-27(d)

Clearly, resolution of the plaintiff’s claims against Baker will require substantial consideration of both 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thus withdrawal of reference is mandatory under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) allows a district court to deny withdrawal of a bankruptcy matter’s reference when withdrawal is unjustified.

In Re Terracor · filed 1988-04-27(d)

Senior Corp. requests that the Court reject the bankruptcy judge’s recommendation for abstention and withdraw the reference of this contested matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and does not believe that withdrawal of the reference is justified in this proceeding.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a referred proceeding when its resolution requires consideration of both Title 11 and federal laws regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce.

Price v. Craddock · filed 1988-04-27(d)

Withdrawal of reference is therefore mandatory under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding when resolving it requires substantial and material consideration of bankruptcy law and non-Code federal law.

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. LTV Corp. (In Re Chateaugay Corp.) · filed 1988-04-28(d)

This brief recital of only some of the issues that the bankruptcy court would have to decide on LTV’s Application is sufficient to indicate that its resolution will require “substantial and material” consideration of both bankruptcy and non-bankruptcy laws. ... Withdrawal of this proceeding is mandatory.

Section 157(d) gives the district court authority to withdraw a bankruptcy reference, so a motion seeking withdrawal is forwarded there for decision.

Pryor v. Continental Insurance Co. (In re Blue Point Carpet, Inc.) · filed 1988-05-02(d)

The District Court may withdraw in whole or in part any case or proceeding referred to the Bankruptcy Court. ... Insofar as Continental is seeking withdrawal of the reference to the Bankruptcy Court, the motion is being forwarded immediately to the District Court for appropriate action.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of either core or non-core proceedings, with core status a significant factor when deciding whether to withdraw a proceeding that may involve a jury trial.

Chaplin v. Harbison Group (In Re Friedberg) · filed 1988-05-10(d)

Either core or non-core proceedings may be withdrawn by the district court. However, whether the matter is a core proceeding is a significant factor in making the withdrawal decision, especially in cases which might involve a jury trial.

Section 157(d) requires a motion to withdraw the reference when a party seeks dismissal under 11 U.S.C. § 305.

Colorado Industrial Bank of Loveland v. Colorado State Bank Commissioner (In Re Colorado Industrial Bank of Loveland) · filed 1988-05-12(d)

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss on that ground was improperly determined by the bankruptcy judge and such a motion should be presented only with a motion to withdraw an order of reference to the bankruptcy judge under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy proceeding on its own motion for cause even when a party’s motion is untimely.

American Community Services, Inc. v. Wright Marketing, Inc. (In Re American Community Services, Inc.) · filed 1988-04-29(d)

Although the court concludes that the plaintiffs’ motion to withdraw the reference is untimely under Local Rule B-106(2) of the District Court Rules of Bankruptcy Practice and Procedure, section 157(d) of title 28 permits a district court to withdraw an adversary proceeding from the bankruptcy court on its own motion if cause for withdrawal is shown. On its own motion, this court withdraws the reference regarding this adversary proceeding from the bankruptcy court in accordance with this memorandum decision and order.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw the reference of an adversary proceeding and place it on its civil docket.

Container Transport, Inc. v. Scott Paper Co. (In Re Container Transport, Inc.) · filed 1988-05-19(d)

2. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), reference of the above-captioned adversary proceeding is withdrawn, and this matter shall be placed on this Court’s civil docket.

Section 157(d)'s right to mandatory withdrawal is waived if a party fails to move for withdrawal at the first opportunity.

Lowin v. Dayton Securities Associates (In Re Securities Group 1980) · filed 1988-05-27(d)

Section 157(d) empowers “a party” to move for withdrawal of the reference, so failure to make the motion at the first opportunity constitutes an implied waiver by all parties involved at that time.

Section 157(d) does not warrant withdrawal of a related non-core proceeding for judicial economy when resolving it will not require a jury trial.

Sullivan v. Maryland Casualty Co. (In Re Ramex International, Inc.) · filed 1988-09-29(d)

Thus, judicial economy, the justification advanced by MCC in support of its motion to withdraw, will not be served by withdrawing the reference to the bankruptcy court. Indeed, this Court concludes that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), no cause exists for the withdrawl of reference to the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when resolving the proceeding requires consideration of nonbankruptcy federal laws regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce, regardless of either court’s expertise.

Randall v. American Solar King Corp. (In Re American Solar King Corp.) · filed 1988-10-11(d)

Moreover, while the Court appreciates the Bankruptcy Court’s expertise in many equitable matters, once it has been determined that the action involves non-Title 11 laws regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce, withdrawal of the reference is required regardless of the assumed expertise of either court.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal when resolving a proceeding calls only for applying settled law to the facts, without material and substantial consideration of both Title 11 and non-code federal law.

Yeager v. Dole Fresh Fruit Co. (In Re Asinelli, Inc.) · filed 1988-11-23(d)

Thus, resolving the issue presented in this adversary proceeding will necessitate a simple determination of whether defendant properly perfected his interest and will not require a material and substantial consideration of both Title 11 and non-code law.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause when uncertainty about the bankruptcy court’s authority to conduct a jury trial could delay distribution to creditors and closure of the estate.

Baitinger Electric Co. v. Daidone Electric of New York, Inc. (In Re Baitinger Electric Co.) · filed 1988-12-07(d)

If this Court declines to withdraw the reference leaving the bankruptcy court to conduct a jury trial, appeals and disputes over the bankruptcy court’s authority may delay considerably any distribution to creditors and closure of the estate. The Court finds that this delay and questions concerning the authority of the bankruptcy court to conduct a jury trial constitute cause for withdrawal of the reference.

Section 157(d) requires cause and consideration of discretionary factors before a district court withdraws a bankruptcy reference.

Wedtech Corp. v. Banco Popular De Puerto Rico (In Re Wedtech Corp.) · filed 1988-12-20(d)

“Cause” must be shown, and this Court must consider various discretionary factors in determining whether to withdraw the reference under § 157(d).

Section 157(d) permits a district court to deny discretionary withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when the bankruptcy court is better placed to decide the claims, despite overlapping district court litigation.

Cruz & Toledo Restaurant Corp. v. Berg (In re Cruz & Toledo Restaurant Corp.) · filed 1988-12-29(d)

Nevertheless, I conclude that this motion for withdrawal of the reference must fail; and I base that conclusion upon a broader ground than the moving parties’ preclusion by filing a bankruptcy proof of claim (although a higher court might well regard that as sufficient). ... The decisive question is which court is more appropriately placed to litigate these claims. I conclude that this is the bankruptcy court.

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

United States Aviex Co. v. Aviex International, Inc. (In Re United States Aviex Co.) · filed 1989-01-10(d)

The Court, after reviewing the Recommendations of the Bankruptcy Court dated December 20, 1988, and objections, if any, to the recommendations, hereby denies the motion of defendant Beene, Garter & Company to withdraw reference of United States Aviex Co., Inc. v. Aviex International, Inc., James D. Azzar and Beene, Garter & Co., Adversary Proceeding No. 87-3057, and its motion to abstain from hearing this proceeding.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to deny withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when the movant has no jury-trial right and shows no persuasive cause for withdrawal.

Garrett Road Supermarket, Inc. v. Wetterau Finance Co. · filed 1989-01-20(d)

I conclude that Garrett Road’s complaint arises in equity and seeks a primarily equitable remedy. Therefore, I find that Wetterau has no right to a trial by jury and has presented no persuasive cause to withdraw the reference to the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(d) permits the district court to withdraw a case on its own motion or on a timely motion by a party for cause shown; the bankruptcy court cannot order withdrawal.

Mutual Savings & Loan Ass'n of Wisconsin v. Coulthard (In Re Coulthard) · filed 1989-04-18(d)

Withdrawal can be accomplished by the district court on its own motion or timely motion of a party for cause shown to the district court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). It is not within the power of the bankruptcy court to order withdrawal to the district court.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding only when resolving it demands substantial and material consideration of federal law outside the Bankruptcy Code.

Frito-Lay, Inc. v. Chateaugay Corp. (In re Chateaugay Corp.) · filed 1989-04-20(d)

The underlying substantive rights which Frito-Lay seeks to assert undoubtedly emanate from non-bankruptcy law. The controversy which Frito-Lay wishes to withdraw from the Bankruptcy Court, however, does not demand “substantial and material consideration” of non-bankruptcy law for its resolution.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a referred bankruptcy case on its own motion even if no party invokes mandatory withdrawal.

In Re Goodman · filed 1989-04-20(d)

Moreover, a party's failure to invoke the mandatory withdrawal provisions of Section 157(d) does not preclude the District Court from withdrawing a case sua sponte.

Section 157(d)’s cause inquiry considers whether a proceeding is non-core and whether withdrawal would promote judicial economy.

Hackling v. Kahn (In Re Luis Electrical Contracting Corp.) · filed 1989-05-18(d)

The nature of the proceeding — whether core or non-core — is but one element of “cause” for withdrawal of reference under § 157(d). Also important is whether withdrawal would promote judicial economy.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference only when resolving the proceeding requires significant interpretation of federal law outside Title 11.

In Re Gibson & Cushman Dredging Corp. · filed 1989-06-05(d)

Mandatory withdrawal is not required in every case where non-Title 11 federal issues will be considered. Instead, withdrawal is required only in those cases where the significant interpretation of non-Title 11 federal issues is necessary to the resolution of a case or proceeding.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal when resolving a proceeding calls only for straightforward application of nonbankruptcy federal law, rather than substantial and material consideration of that law.

Pereira v. New York Hotel & Motel Trades Council (In Re Chadborne Industries, Ltd.) · filed 1989-06-05(d)

Accordingly, I conclude that, although resolution of the question whether the trustee is a “successor employer” will involve some consideration of labor as well as bankruptcy law, the labor law questions at issue are straightforward and do not require substantial and material consideration of the NLRA. It follows that it would be inappropriate to withdraw the reference.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw the bankruptcy reference in part to decide a particular motion.

Sonnax Industries, Inc. v. Tri Component Products, Corp. (In Re Sonnax Industries, Inc.) · filed 1989-06-25(d)

At the hearing, the parties agreed that this Court should hear and determine the motion to modify stay, and thus the Court, on its own motion, will partially withdraw the reference in the underlying bankruptcy case for the limited purpose of deciding this motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) (district court may withdraw a case or proceeding “in whole or in part”) (emphasis added).

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal when a proceeding calls only for routine application of established nonbankruptcy federal law.

International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.) · filed 1989-07-21(d)

While any application of a statute to a factual situation necessitates a degree of statutory interpretation, as is the case here, Congress could not have intended to provide mandatory withdrawal in cases that merely involve a routine application of established legal standards.

Mandatory withdrawal under § 157(d) requires a timely motion by a party.

Gates Engineering Co. v. International Fidelity Insurance (In re Gates Engineering Co.) · filed 1989-07-24(d)

While the proceeding may be subject to withdrawal, it is so only upon timely motion of a party.

Section 157(d) does not permit withdrawal of the reference based on an unobjected-to proof of claim when no dispute yet requires judicial resolution.

In Re Chateaugay Corp. · filed 1989-08-22(d)

In the case at bar, there has been no objection by the Debtor to the proofs of claim. Therefore, at this time the claim is deemed allowed; there is as of yet no “proceeding” or “case” under § 157(d).

Under § 157(d), certification of a proceeding can withdraw its reference to the bankruptcy court and restore it to the district court.

In Re Teerlink Ranch Ltd., a California Limited Partnership, Debtor. Heber N. Teerlink Erma D. Teerlink v. Lambe · filed 1989-10-06(d)

The bankruptcy court certified Teerlink’s complaint to the district court. The effect of the certification was to withdraw the district court’s reference of the case to the bankruptcy court and restore the case to the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 157(d); Northern District Local Rule 700-7. Contrary to TRL’s contention, the district court had jurisdiction of Teerlink’s case.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding when resolving it requires substantial and material consideration of federal law outside the Bankruptcy Code that regulates interstate commerce.

In Re Chateaugay Corp. · filed 1989-10-17(d)

Consistent with the statutory language, withdrawal of the reference is mandated in any case in which "substantial and material consideration" of federal statutes other than the Bankruptcy Code is "necessary for the resolution of a case or proceeding." In re Chateaugay Corp., 86 B.R. 33, 36 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (quoting In re White Motor Corp., 42 B.R. 693, 703, 704 (N.D.Ohio 1984) (emphasis in original)).

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding when its resolution requires substantial and material consideration of federal law beyond the Bankruptcy Code.

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. Official Parent Creditors' Committee of the LTV Corp. · filed 1989-10-17(d)

Determination of those issues would entail material and substantial considerations of numerous ERISA provisions as well as constitutional provisions. Withdrawal of this proceeding is therefore mandatory.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a related non-core proceeding for good cause when a likely jury trial in bankruptcy court would be judicially inefficient.

Grabowski v. Levin (In Re Second Pine, Inc.) · filed 1989-10-23(d)

Defendants have filed a Motion for Withdrawal of Reference of Proceedings from Bankruptcy Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), which allows a district court to withdraw a case referred to bankruptcy court “for good cause shown.” ... As previously noted, the parties have requested a jury trial in this related non-core matter. Considering the nature of the plaintiff’s cause of action, it appears likely that the bankruptcy court will be required to conduct a jury trial. In light of the judicial economy considerations, I will grant Defendants’ Motion for Withdrawal of Reference of Proceedings from Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a referred proceeding when its resolution requires substantial and material consideration of non-Bankruptcy Code laws affecting interstate commerce.

Hatzel & Buehler, Inc. v. Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc. · filed 1989-10-30(d)

The Court concludes that the consolidated adversary proceedings must be withdrawn from the Bankruptcy Court under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) because resolution of the litigation requires substantial and material consideration of non-Bankruptcy Code regulations affecting interstate commerce.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference based on speculation that substantial consideration of nonbankruptcy federal law may be needed.

Sibarium v. NCNB Texas National Bank · filed 1989-11-02(d)

The necessity of applying D’Oench Duhme or § 1823(e) in this proceeding, therefore, is at best speculative. The Court does not perceive the need for interpretation of non-Code issues of federal law that would mandate withdrawal of the reference from the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(d) does not permit discretionary withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding solely because it is non-core.

Hatzel & Buehler, Inc. v. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. · filed 1989-11-03(d)

Proceedings should not be withdrawn for the sole reason that they are non-core. The “cause shown” requirement in section 157(d) creates a “presumption that Congress intended to have bankruptcy proceedings adjudicated in bankruptcy court unless rebutted by a contravening policy.”

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal to the district court when resolving a bankruptcy proceeding requires significant interpretation of other federal laws.

United States v. Inslaw, Inc. (Inslaw, Inc.) · filed 1989-11-22(d)

It is only those cases which require a significant interpretation of federal laws that must be withdrawn.

Section 157(d)'s withdrawal rule turns on whether the proceeding requires substantial and material consideration of both title 11 and federal laws regulating interstate commerce.

Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.) · filed 1989-11-29(d)

This Court is not required to engage in a substantial and material consideration of “both title 11 and other laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce,” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

A jury demand in a core preference proceeding does not by itself require withdrawal of the reference; the bankruptcy court may handle pretrial proceedings until the case is ready for jury trial.

City Fire Equipment Co. v. Ansul Fire Protection Wormald U.S., Inc. · filed 1989-12-07(d)

This court concludes that the mere filing of a jury demand does not cause the Bankruptcy Court to lose “jurisdiction” of the action(s) or mandate that the reference be withdrawn. 28 U.S.C. § 157 allows Bankruptcy Judges to hear all core proceedings which are referred to it.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal when an injunction proceeding does not require deciding the nonbankruptcy federal law underlying the lawsuit to be enjoined.

LRV Corp. v. Miller (In Re Chateaugay Corp.) · filed 1990-01-16(d)

Consequently, although the underlying cause of action in Pittsburgh Lawsuit 2 may necessitate substantial and material consideration of laws other than the Code, the District Court properly denied the Miller and Shaffer withdrawal motion because the LTV application concerned not the underlying merits of the Pittsburgh Lawsuit 2, but whether a ruling in that lawsuit could have adverse implications for the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause when resolving overlapping claims together would conserve resources.

Ameritel Corp. v. Isoetec Communications, Inc. · filed 1990-01-18(d)

Sufficient cause exists to withdraw reference where trial of all issues in the district court would conserve the resources of both debtor and creditor. ... The court finds that the most efficient use of judicial and litigant resources is for this court to retain Ameritel’s first and third counterclaims at this point.

Section 157(d)’s standards for mandatory or permissive withdrawal are not met by an unsupported claim that the bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction.

Lopresto v. Department of Revenue, Florida (In Re Iorizzo) · filed 1990-02-27(d)

In conclusion, defendant’s basic premise for withdrawing the reference, i.e., that the Bankruptcy Court lacks jurisdiction, is incorrect and thus, the reference will not be withdrawn. Defendant has failed to meet the standard for either mandatory or permissive withdrawal of the reference and hence, defendant’s motion must be and hereby is denied.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy adversary proceeding merely because it includes a RICO claim.

O'Connell v. Terranova (In Re Adelphi Institute, Inc.) · filed 1990-03-21(d)

To the extent that this motion presents for the first time in this district the issue of whether the bringing of a RICO claim in an adversary proceeding requires automatic withdrawal of the action to district court, such a result is not required under the appropriate standard nor would it serve the purpose for which Section 157(d) was enacted.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference made in its own district; a motion to withdraw a reference made elsewhere belongs in the referring district court.

City of New York v. Exxon Corp. · filed 1990-03-30(d)

Thus, because the District Court for the Central District of California “referred” the Refinemet Chapter 11 proceeding to its own bankruptcy court, pursuant to its own standing rules and procedures, only the California district court, and not this Court, can withdraw the reference, and a motion to withdraw the reference would properly be filed in the Central District of California.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference when the proceeding is triable to a jury.

Roth v. Iacovelli (In Re Southeast Connectors, Inc.) · filed 1990-04-06(d)

Consequently, this court’s order of reference to the báBkrupt-cy court is withdrawn.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when resolving the proceeding calls for complex interpretation of a nonbankruptcy federal statute on an issue of first impression.

Sullivan v. Hiser (In Re St. Mary Hospital) · filed 1990-05-17(d)

When the bankruptcy court must engage in a complex search for the appropriate interpretation of a nonbank-ruptcy federal statute involving an issue of first impression, section 157(d) withdrawal is required.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw the reference of noncore claims on its own motion.

DuVoisin v. Kennerly, Montgomery, Howard & Finley (In Re Southern Industrial Banking Corp.) · filed 1990-05-24(d)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), this Court hereby WITHDRAWS THE REFERENCE of the Trustee’s noncore claims for damages based on malpractice and related torts.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy case it previously referred to the bankruptcy court on its own initiative.

In Re RED CARPET CORPORATION OF PANAMA CITY BEACH, Debtor. Jimmy HATCHER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John MILLER, Responde · filed 1990-06-04(d)

Considering that Judge Vinson was assuming his classic role of finding facts and drawing conclusions from those facts, and that the district court may withdraw reference of the case to the bankruptcy court sua sponte, we find no conflict or injustice in allowing Judge Vinson to follow his own order on remand.

A district court may withdraw the reference of a non-core proceeding when a party demands a jury trial and the parties do not consent to adjudication by the bankruptcy court.

Novak v. Lorenz (In Re Novak) · filed 1990-06-18(d)

The court concurs in Judge Ginsberg's view that when a party to a non-core proceeding stands on its right to trial by jury, see Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 2782, 106 L.Ed.2d 26 (1989), and the parties do not consent to adjudication by the bankruptcy court, it is better for the court to withdraw the reference.

Section 157(d) provides a motion to withdraw the reference as the procedure for challenging an allegedly improper referral to bankruptcy court.

Bratton v. Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Jackson & Tucker (In Re Bratton) · filed 1990-06-21(d)

These arguments will not be addressed. If Dodrill believed the reference was inappropriate, the appropriate action would have been to file a motion to withdraw reference pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference only upon a clear showing of cause and extraordinary circumstances.

Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Fifth Third Bank of Columbus (In Re Onyx Motor Car Corp.) · filed 1990-06-26(d)

For a withdrawal of reference to be granted this Court will apply a two prong test which must be satisfied: (1) there must be a clear demonstration of “cause” and, (2) extraordinary circumstances.

Section 157(d) does not bar a district court from referring a withdrawn proceeding back to the bankruptcy court for a report and recommendation.

Matter of Lissner Corp. · filed 1990-07-31(d)

Although the provisions of § 157(d) regarding withdrawal of the reference are silent as to whether the district court may refer a recalled matter back to the bankruptcy court for a report and recommendation in the manner provided for in § 157(c)(1), there is nothing in the terms of § 157(d) which suggests that this procedure is precluded.

Section 157(d) supports withdrawal of the reference for jury-trial claims that the bankruptcy court lacks authority to try.

In re Drewes v. Zip Feed Mills, Inc. · filed 1990-08-01(d)

In United Missouri the Circuit granted a writ of mandamus requiring the District Court to withdraw reference of the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). The court is satisfied from the pleadings that substantially the same circumstances exist which would require reference withdrawal as regards that portion of the Complaint being transferred.

Section 157(d) requires a facially valid claim calling for substantial and material consideration of nonbankruptcy federal law before withdrawal of reference is mandatory.

Auto Specialties Manufacturing Co. v. Sachs (In Re Auto Specialties Manufacturing Co.) · filed 1990-08-27(d)

Yet, as all of these cases recognize, § 157(d) is to be narrowly construed, mandating withdrawal only when the district court “can make an affirmative determination that resolution of the claims will require substantial and material consideration of non-code statutes.” ... In other words, it is not enough that AUSCO has merely added a RICO claim. The claim must be facially valid; one able at a minimum to survive challenge under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12.

Section 157(d) requires cause to be shown before a district court withdraws a bankruptcy reference.

In Re Edward S. PRUITT and Ida B. Pruitt. Appeal of LANDMARK SAVINGS ASSOCIATION · filed 1990-09-21(d)

Thus, the statute requires in clear terms that cause be shown before the reference can be withdrawn.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw part of a bankruptcy proceeding from the bankruptcy court, with severance of claims as a feature of partial withdrawal.

In the Matter of Dwight L. Lieb, Debtor (Two Cases) · filed 1990-12-13(d)

The statute authorizing withdrawal of the reference allows a district court to withdraw a proceeding “in part,” implying that a “severance” of Lieb’s claims is nothing more than a necessary and appropriate feature of partial withdrawal.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a non-core proceeding to be delayed until trial or dispositive motions, while related core proceedings remain in bankruptcy court.

Mellon v. Delaware & Hudson Railway Co. (In Re Delaware & HudSon Railway Co.) · filed 1991-01-10(d)

For the reasons discussed, the Court concludes that the D & 0 lawsuit is a non-core proceeding that should be permissively withdrawn just prior to trial while the remaining seven companion lawsuits are core proceedings that should not be withdrawn. Therefore, the Court will grant defendants’ Motion to Withdraw Reference of the D & 0 lawsuit to the Bankruptcy Court, but not until such time as the case is ready for trial or case dispositive motions arise, and deny defendants’ Motion to Withdraw Reference of the remaining seven cases.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy matter from an automatic referral by retaining the case after allowing the trustee to intervene.

Anderson v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation · filed 1991-01-15(d)

Because the district court retained jurisdiction of the case after the trustee was substituted as plaintiff, we conclude that "[b]y 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. The district court was then free to exercise section 1334 jurisdiction of this case." Carlton v. BAWW, Inc., 751 F.2d 781, 788 (5th Cir.1985).

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding when consideration of other federal law is only tangential.

United States v. Lenard (In Re Lenard) · filed 1991-02-20(d)

While consideration of the FTC Act may be involved tangentially, the central issues concern the straightforward application of Bankruptcy Code provisions. Accordingly, mandatory withdrawal of the reference is not warranted.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference after considering a bankruptcy judge’s findings and conclusions.

J.T. Moran Financial Corp. v. American Consolidated Financial Corp. (In Re J.T. Moran Financial Corp.) · filed 1991-02-21(d)

For the foregoing reasons, the court adopts the findings (to the extent material) and the conclusions of the bankruptcy judge regarding the motion to withdraw the reference, and grants the withdrawal, but denies the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal when a proceeding arising in a Title 11 case presents a non-Title 11 federal question that will affect its outcome.

Contemporary Lithographers, Inc. v. Hibbert (In Re Contemporary Lithographers, Inc.) · filed 1991-03-01(d)

The court believes that if a proceeding arises in a Title 11 case and presents a non-Title 11 federal question which will affect the outcome of the proceeding mandatory withdrawal applies.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw bankruptcy court supervision of a trustee’s claim and related matters for good cause.

Lester v. Resolution Trust Corp. · filed 1991-03-08(d)

Good cause exists to withdraw the supervision of this claim and any matter relating to possible settlement, fees, or costs in connection with the claim from the bankruptcy court to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw the reference of a bankruptcy proceeding so the parties can receive a jury trial in district court.

Ellenberg v. Bouldin · filed 1991-03-16(d)

The Bankruptcy Judge has recommended that this court withdraw the reference of this proceeding in order to provide the parties with a court of unquestioned jurisdiction to try this matter before a jury. ... After a careful, de novo, review of the entire record and the law, the court ADOPTS the reasoning of the Bankruptcy Judge and WITHDRAWS THE REFERENCE OF THIS PROCEEDING TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 157(d); L.R. 265-1.

Section 157(d) requires cause to withdraw a bankruptcy reference, and the bankruptcy court’s initial consideration of core status and related issues did not establish cause for withdrawal.

Cooper v. Howitt (In Re 1733 Ridge Road East, Inc.) · filed 1991-04-08(d)

For the reasons discussed briefly below, I find that the defendants have failed to proffer cause for withdrawal of the reference to the Bankruptcy Court, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), and accordingly I deny their motion for withdrawal.

Section 157(d) allows parties that have submitted to a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction to seek withdrawal of the reference to the district court; here, that was their sole remedy for pursuing another forum.

In Re Financial News Network, Inc. · filed 1991-04-18(d)

The court below rightly noted that the FTC and the States retain the ability to seek withdrawal of the reference either of the entire proceeding or its antitrust components to the District Court. Once these entities have submitted to the court’s jurisdiction, that is their sole remedy.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference on timely motion when a core matter requires substantial interpretation of federal statutes affecting interstate commerce.

The City Of New York v. Exxon Corporation · filed 1991-05-02(d)

Yet matters within this "core" jurisdiction, upon timely motion, must be withdrawn under Sec. 157(d) if they require the bankruptcy court to substantially interpret federal statutes which affect interstate commerce.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a core bankruptcy matter on timely motion when it requires substantial interpretation of federal statutes affecting interstate commerce.

City of New York v. Exxon Corp. · filed 1991-05-02(d)

Yet matters within this “core” jurisdiction, upon timely motion, must be withdrawn under § 157(d) if they require the bankruptcy court to substantially interpret federal statutes which affect interstate commerce.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal when a bankruptcy court must interpret an uncertain legal standard, rather than apply established law to the facts.

Dow Jones/Group W Television Co. v. National Broadcasting Co. · filed 1991-05-10(d)

The emerging trend in cases applying § 157(d) indicates that withdrawal is mandatory only if the Bankruptcy Court is required to interpret an uncertain legal standard, as opposed to applying fixed legal standards to a given set of facts.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference only when resolving the proceeding calls for substantial and material consideration of federal law outside the Bankruptcy Code.

In Re Quaker City Gear Works, Inc. · filed 1991-06-06(d)

Accordingly, that language has been routinely construed as requiring withdrawal only when “substantial and material consideration” of federal statutes other than the Bankruptcy Code are necessary for the resolution of a case or proceeding. ... Nor does the Court believe that the Objections necessitate substantial and material consideration of ERISA and the IRC. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw reference is denied.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy referral in part.

Findley v. Blinken (In Re Joint Eastern & Southern District Asbestos Litigation) · filed 1991-06-27(d)

In effect, a section 157(d) partial removal occurred by that date permitting the district court to protect the Trust against destruction and the Plan against frustration.

Section 157(d) requires a district court to withdraw a referred proceeding when resolving it requires consideration of both title 11 and a federal law regulating activities affecting interstate commerce.

Martin v. Friedman · filed 1991-06-27(d)

By the terms of § 157(d), this Court must withdraw an adversary proceeding if it is clear that that action will require the consideration of federal laws regulating interstate commerce, in addition to title 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 157(d) requires a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference before it can regain original jurisdiction over the referred proceeding.

In Re Southold Development Corp. · filed 1991-07-10(d)

Consequently, in order to regain original jurisdiction, a district court must withdraw its reference of the case to the bankruptcy court. Absent such a withdrawal, the bankruptcy court retains original jurisdiction and the district court appellate jurisdiction.

Section 157(d) allows a district court to deny withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding without prejudice while the bankruptcy court handles pretrial matters, leaving withdrawal for jury trial to be considered when the case is ready for trial.

Business Communications, Inc. v. Freeman · filed 1991-07-11(d)

The district court may, “for cause shown,” withdraw any case or proceeding that has been referred to the bankruptcy court. 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). ... Absent any evidence that the adversary proceeding cannot be handled expeditiously by the bankruptcy judge, the court sees no reason why the case must be withdrawn at this preliminary stage of the litigation. Accordingly, defendants’ motion to withdraw reference is denied without prejudice. Defendants may renew their motion when the case is ready for trial.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference on a party's motion when the procedural path to the district court is uncertain.

In Re Hucke · filed 1991-07-11(d)

Here, it is uncertain whether this court is sitting on appeal, entertaining objections, or acting at the request of the bankruptcy judge. To clear up the procedural confusion, I grant defendant's motion for withdrawal of reference from the bankruptcy court. 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). I will review this matter de novo.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause shown.

Wills Motors, Inc. v. Volvo North America Corp. · filed 1991-07-19(d)

and good cause having been shown; ... ORDERED that this action, captioned ... is hereby withdrawn from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York and returned to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; and ... IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court shall forthwith transmit all pleadings and papers filed in this matter to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in White Plains, New York.

Section 157(d) requires cause to be shown before a district court may withdraw a reference to the bankruptcy court, even if withdrawal could occur by implication.

In Re Hall · filed 1991-07-26(d)

However, even if withdrawal can be found by implication, there still must be some "cause shown" for the withdrawal. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(d) (1988). The district court did not declare any cause for a withdrawal of the reference in this case.

Section 157(d) requires cause to withdraw a bankruptcy reference, even when withdrawal is claimed by implication.

Oaks of Woodlake Phase III, Ltd. v. Hall, Bayoutree Associates, Ltd. (In re Hall, Bayoutree Associates, Ltd.) · filed 1991-07-26(d)

However, even if withdrawal can be found by implication, there still must be some “cause shown” for the withdrawal.

Section 157(d) requires the moving party to show cause for full or partial withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding from the bankruptcy court.

United States v. Environmental Waste Control, Inc. · filed 1991-08-06(d)

Before a district court withdraws a bankruptcy proceeding pursuant to 157(d), cause must be shown by the moving party. ... For the reasons that follow, the court concludes that STOP has not demonstrated cause for either full or partial withdrawal of EWC’s bankruptcy proceedings.

Section 157(d) requires the district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference when resolving the proceeding requires consideration of both bankruptcy law and federal securities laws.

In Re Daisy Systems Securities Litigation · filed 1991-08-09(d)

28 U.S.C. § 157(d) clearly states that the district court must withdraw the reference where “resolution of the proceeding requires consideration of both title 11 and other laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce.” ... Since this evaluation cannot be accomplished without considering federal securities laws, this court must withdraw the reference.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of the bankruptcy reference when resolving a proceeding requires substantial and material consideration of both the Bankruptcy Code and another federal law regulating interstate commerce.

Environmental Protection Agency v. National Gypsum Co. (In Re National Gypsum Co.) · filed 1991-09-13(d)

In view of such precedent, the determinations surrounding the Proof of Claim, as outlined in detail at the outset of this opinion, are testimony to the “substantial and material consideration” of both CERCLA and the Code necessary to their resolution. When a CERCLA claim arises, discharge-ability of claim, estimation of claim, standard of liability, and priority of claim in bankruptcy proceedings are examples of such determinations. Pursuant to Section 157(d), this Court finds that such “substantial and material consideration” mandate withdrawal of reference in the present case.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause when the district court finds that the action should be stayed pending arbitration.

Office of Cereales of the Republic of Tunisia v. Coastal Carriers Corp. · filed 1991-10-03(d)

Because I find that the action should be stayed, there is ample cause for me to withdraw the reference pursuant to the permissive withdrawal provision of 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) permits discretionary withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference only for compelling cause; a jury demand alone does not establish cause.

Citicorp North America, Inc. v. Finley (In Re Washington Manufacturing Co.) · filed 1991-10-04(d)

Thus, only a compelling cause warrants withdrawal from the automatic reference to bankruptcy under the non-mandatory provision. The Court examines below whether a jury demand is sufficient cause to withdraw and holds that it is not.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal when resolving the proceeding does not require substantial and material consideration of the relevant federal laws outside the Bankruptcy Code.

Energy Development Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. (In Re Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.) · filed 1991-11-20(d)

Because a substantial and material consideration of the Natural Gas Act, the Natural Gas Policy Act, and the Decontrol Act is not required to resolve the case, Section 157(d) does not provide for mandatory withdrawal.

Section 157(d) allows withdrawal of reference only when a proceeding has been referred to the bankruptcy court.

In Re Franklin Savings Corp. · filed 1991-11-25(d)

Since there is no proceeding before the Court due to the failure of automatic reference to operate on the pending lawsuit in the District Court, the Court rules that there is no foundation proceeding upon which the motion to withdraw reference can operate. Therefore, the RTC/FSA motion for withdrawal should be dismissed.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to deny withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when the bankruptcy court can adjudicate the claims while satisfying jury trial and efficiency concerns.

Weiss v. Avenir Acquisition Corp. II · filed 1991-12-20(d)

This Court has discretion to withdraw reference to the bankruptcy court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). ... Because the Court is convinced that the bankruptcy court provides a forum in which the legal claims may be adjudicated, the constitutional criteria may be satisfied and the efficiency concerns may be alleviated, the motion to withdraw reference is denied.

Section 157(d) requires mandatory withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding only when resolving it requires significant interpretation of federal laws regulating interstate commerce.

Keller v. Blinder (In Re Blinder Robinson & Co.) · filed 1991-12-23(d)

It does not appear that a finding of a violation of federal securities laws is necessary to the Trustee’s success on any of the claims, or that any significant interpretation of federal securities will be required. Therefore, the motion for mandatory withdrawal of the reference must be denied.

Section 157(d) allows a district court to consider mandatory withdrawal even when a party’s motion is untimely.

Morris v. Resolution Trust Corp. (In Re Mid America Entertainment Plus, Inc.) · filed 1991-12-31(d)

Consequently, this court will consider mandatory withdrawal even though the RTC’s motion was filed almost a month late.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause when a timely jury demand concerns non-core matters.

In Re Tastee Donuts, Inc. · filed 1992-01-28(d)

Faced with a timely jury demand in a proceeding involving non-core matters, the Court is compelled to withdraw the reference of this proceeding.

Section 157(d) does not require immediate withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference merely because a party is entitled to a jury trial; judicial economy informs when withdrawal is warranted.

Kenai Corp. v. National Union Fire Insurance (In Re Kenai Corp.) · filed 1992-01-28(d)

A rule that would require a district court to withdraw a reference simply because a party is entitled to a jury trial, regardless of how far along toward trial a case may be, runs counter to the policy favoring judicial economy that underlies the statutory scheme governing the relationship between the district courts and bankruptcy courts.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause when withdrawal is not mandatory.

Palmer & Palmer, P.C. v. United States Trustee (In re Hargis) · filed 1992-02-20(d)

This issue involves only a consideration of the bankruptcy laws of the United States. It does not involve other laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities that affect interstate commerce. Consequently, withdrawal of reference is not mandatory, but is within the discretion of this Court, if there is a showing of cause that would warrant it.

Section 157(d) requires a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference when resolving the proceeding requires consideration of federal laws regulating activities affecting interstate commerce.

United States v. One Parcel of Real Property · filed 1992-02-24(d)

However, under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), this court must withdraw reference if the resolution of a proceeding requires consideration of laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce. ... Accordingly, I find that these cases are subject to mandatory withdrawal under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) does not mandate withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when resolving the claim requires no substantial and material consideration of non-Code federal law.

Wittes v. Interco Inc. · filed 1992-03-03(d)

On the basis of the foregoing, the Court concludes that withdrawal is not mandated here, because the resolution of Wittes’ claim in the bankruptcy court will not involve substantial and material consideration of the ADEA or significant prejudice to the movant.

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

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. Continental Airlines, Inc. (In Re Continental Airlines) · filed 1992-03-11(d)

The standard for a mandatory withdrawal of reference is not met where the Court need not address the question of federal nonbankruptcy law raised.

Section 157(d) permits a district judge to withdraw bankruptcy claims that require examination of federal securities laws.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc. · filed 1992-03-27(d)

Because the Securities Claims necessitated an examination of federal securities laws, Judge Pollack properly withdrew those claims from the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when a federal claim calls only for routine application of nonbankruptcy law.

In Re Laventhol & Horwath · filed 1992-04-14(d)

PTL has simply failed to show that this case involves anything other than a routine application of RICO law. Accordingly, we find no basis for mandatory withdrawal of the reference.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding merely because the bankruptcy court must resolve a straightforward jurisdictional issue under FIRREA.

Hassett v. Federal Deposit Insurance (In Re CIS Corp.) · filed 1992-05-08(d)

It is this court’s ruling on the present motion that the jurisdictional issue arising under FIRREA does not mandate withdrawal.

Section 157(d) permits discretionary withdrawal for cause when bankruptcy and district court proceedings involve essentially the same facts.

In Re Sevko, Inc. · filed 1992-05-20(d)

Ullman-Briggs is in a situation in which it is involved in two proceedings in bankruptcy and non-bankruptcy forums, litigating essentially the same core of transactional facts, with different parties. Research indicates that when this situation arises, it has generally been found to constitute cause for discretionary withdrawal.

Section 157(d) requires mandatory withdrawal only when resolving the proceeding requires consideration of both title 11 and federal law regulating interstate commerce.

Brizendine v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. · filed 1992-05-28(d)

To be subject to mandatory withdrawal of the reference, resolution of a proceeding must require “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). Title 11 does not need to be considered in this action; it merely provides the authority under which plaintiff has become successor to the bankrupt corporations.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause when resolving related proceedings together would conserve resources and expedite the bankruptcy process.

In Re Oil Co., Inc. · filed 1992-04-30(d)

Rather it would expedite the bankruptcy process, foster the economical use of both debtors’ and creditors’ resources in this instance, and save already scant judicial time and resource to, in effect, litigate the conspiracy charge and the tax liability claims associated therewith in one consolidated proceeding. For this reason, the Court finds that discretionary withdrawal of the claim objection in the Oil Co. case and the adversary proceeding in the Kapco case is appropriate.

Section 157(d) permits the district court to withdraw a reference on a party’s motion or its own motion; the bankruptcy court cannot send the case back itself.

Biglari Import & Export, Inc. v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. (In Re Biglari Import & Export, Inc.) · filed 1992-06-17(d)

The district court, upon motion to that court or on its own motion, may withdraw this reference over this adversary proceeding, as it sees fit, 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), but the bankruptcy court has no statutory authority to send the case back to the district court.

Section 157(d) required withdrawal of the reference for the objection and related filings in this proceeding.

United States Gypsum Co. v. National Gypsum Co. (In Re National Gypsum Co.) · filed 1992-07-10(d)

Withdrawal of the reference of U.S. Gypsum’s objection and related filings is mandatory under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a professional malpractice claim from the bankruptcy court for trial.

Waire v. Baker · filed 1992-08-10(d)

Nevertheless, given the nature of this claim and the fact that Mr. Waire is proceeding pro se, this court now orders that the issue relating to Mr. Waire’s professional malpractice claim be removed from the bankruptcy court to this court for trial. As this case will proceed as an issue withdrawn from the bankruptcy court under the district court’s discretionary power as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), the automatic stay provision set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) is not being jeopardized.

Section 157(d) gives the district court, not the bankruptcy court, authority to withdraw a bankruptcy reference.

Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois v. Betts (In Re Betts) · filed 1992-08-13(d)

Lastly, the Debtor’s arguments concerning withdrawal of the reference are denied because the Debtor has chosen the wrong forum in which to raise them. Withdrawal of the reference of a case or adversary proceeding, in whole or in part, is within the authority of the district court.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when applying nonbankruptcy law is only tangential to the proceeding.

In Re Coated Sales, Inc. · filed 1992-09-17(d)

Any application of CERCLA will be tangential to the consideration of the Debtors’ 554(a) application. To the extent that the bankruptcy court is required to apply provisions of CERCLA in its determination of the Debtors’ application, the bankruptcy court would primarily be required to apply the statute to the law of the case. In other words, the application does not involve significant aspects of CERCLA. Accordingly, withdrawal of the reference is not mandated.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy court reference for good cause when withdrawal is needed to preserve a party’s right to a jury trial.

Petrino v. Eley · filed 1992-10-07(d)

Section 157(d) provides that the district court may withdraw any case referred to a bankruptcy court “for good cause shown.” Here, plaintiff argues that she has shown good cause because she has a right to a jury trial on her state law claims and bankruptcy courts cannot conduct jury trials. Therefore, plaintiff argues, the reference must be withdrawn to preserve her Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. I agree.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of the bankruptcy court reference for good cause, including regulations that would impede a trustee’s protection of estate assets and threaten the trustee with criminal liability.

Cooper v. Interstate Commerce Commission (In Re Bulldog Trucking, Inc.) · filed 1992-10-22(d)

The Trustee has demonstrated that the MC-208 Regulations would cripple his ability to marshal and protect the assets of the estate. The Commission has essentially threatened the Trustee with criminal liability if he disregards the Regulations. For these reasons and for other good cause shown, the Court believes that permissive withdrawal is proper. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

A motion to withdraw the reference must be brought before a district court judge; a bankruptcy judge will not recommend withdrawal before the district court receives the motion.

Dependable Insurance Co. v. Horton (In Re Horton) · filed 1992-12-18(d)

Dependable has also included in its cross-motion a request that this court recommend withdrawal of the reference under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) of any portion of its adversary proceeding which survives the pending motions. The court denies this relief because a motion for withdrawal of the reference is properly brought before a district court judge pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 5011(a).

Section 157(d) reserves decisions on motions to withdraw a bankruptcy reference to the district court.

In Re Ethington · filed 1993-01-22(d)

However, this Court may not hear or determine a motion to withdraw reference; this matter is left to the exclusive province of the district court.

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

American Freight System, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission (In Re American Freight System, Inc.) · filed 1993-02-16(d)

Following the majority view, the court believes it is enough for mandatory withdrawal if the resolution of the proceeding requires consideration of bankruptcy law and the substantial and material consideration of non-bankruptcy federal statutes regulating activities affecting interstate commerce.

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

Franklin Savings Ass'n v. Office of Thrift Supervision · filed 1993-02-17(d)

Following the majority view, the court believes it is enough for mandatory withdrawal if the resolution of the proceeding requires consideration of bankruptcy law and the substantial and material consideration of non-bankruptcy federal statutes regulating activities affecting interstate commerce.

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

American Body Armor & Equipment, Inc. v. Clark (In Re American Body Armor & Equipment, Inc.) · filed 1993-03-11(d)

Instead, only those issues raising a “substantial and material consideration” of non-bankruptcy code law will result in mandatory withdrawal.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for good cause; a claimed jury-trial right does not support withdrawal when no such right exists.

Sender v. Hardie (In re Hedged-Investments Associates, Inc.) · filed 1993-03-19(d)

Section 157(d) provides that the district court may withdraw any case referred to a bankruptcy court “for good cause shown.’’ 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). ... Consequently, there is no Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in this case and Mrs. Hardie’s motion will be denied.

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

In Re Kuhlman Diecasting Co. · filed 1993-03-22(d)

In sum, we find that withdrawal is reserved only for those cases where substantial and material consideration of the non-bankruptcy federal statutes is necessary for the resolution of the proceeding.

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

Eubanks v. Esenjay Petroleum Corp. · filed 1993-03-29(d)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), the reference of plaintiff’s adversary proceedings to the bankruptcy court is WITHDRAWN.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy proceeding, including its resolution by compromise.

Stead Industries, Inc., In re · filed 1993-03-29(d)

The district court has original jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters and may withdraw, on motion or sua sponte, a bankruptcy proceeding in whole or in part. ... Here, the district court withdrew the adversary proceeding and everything associated with the resolution of that proceeding, whether by trial, compromise, or formal settlement.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding merely because a party asserts a claim under another federal statute or the court must consider non-bankruptcy law incidentally.

In Re Philadelphia Training Center Corp. · filed 1993-05-19(d)

The mere assertion that a cause of action may arise under non-bankruptcy federal statutes is not sufficient to justify a mandatory withdrawal. Nor is the incidental need to consider non-bankruptcy law sufficient to require withdrawal.

Section 157(d) requires a party seeking withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference based on a jury demand to provide enough information to assess whether a jury trial is available and whether the proceeding is core.

Beeline Engineering & Construction, Inc. v. D'Espies (In Re Beeline Engineering & Construction, Inc.) · filed 1993-05-27(d)

In the instant case, D’ESPIES has not attached any bankruptcy pleadings or otherwise provided the information necessary to determine, among other things, whether the adversarial proceeding raises legal claims that are triable by a jury, whether D’ESPIES has previously made a claim against the estate and thereby submitted himself to the equitable jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court, and whether the proceeding is core or non-core in nature. This Court declines to withdraw the bankruptcy reference on the showing made.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of the bankruptcy reference when resolving a proceeding requires consideration of civil rights claims; the bankruptcy court may direct withdrawal sua sponte.

Walton v. Ag Credit, ACA (In re Walton) · filed 1993-06-02(d)

Since it is necessary to consider the Debtors’ civil rights claims for complete resolution of the instant adversary action, withdrawal of reference is mandatory under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). Therefore, in accordance with § 157(d) and judicial economy, 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) requires cause for permissive withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference; district court litigation involving different transactions does not establish cause.

American Motor Club, Inc. v. Neu (In re American Motor Club, Inc.) · filed 1993-06-15(d)

Withdrawal of reference is permitted only if the motion is for “cause shown.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). ... In the case before this Court, the movants have shown no cause for withdrawing the reference of this case from the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for a proceeding based solely on state law.

Met-Al, Inc. v. Hansen Storage Co. · filed 1993-06-22(d)

In light of § 157(d)’s plain language, which clearly states that withdrawal of reference is mandatory only when federal law is implicated, the Court finds that Hansen’s motion cannot be granted under the mandatory provisions of § 157(d).

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a referred proceeding when resolving it calls for substantial consideration of a federal law regulating interstate commerce outside the Bankruptcy Code.

In Re Horizon Air, Inc. · filed 1993-06-25(d)

Because resolution of the preliminary injunction motion requires substantial and material consideration of a non-Code statute regulating interstate commerce, the proceeding is hereby removed from the bankruptcy court to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 157(d).

Section 157(d) permits partial withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for jury trial on legal claims while leaving pretrial matters, including dispositive motions, with the bankruptcy court.

Stein v. Miller · filed 1993-08-06(d)

The bankruptcy court reference is WITHDRAWN IN PART for these three adversary cases as to the trial of any legal causes of action. The bankruptcy court reference is AFFIRMED in all other respects, including hearing and determination of case dispositive motions.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause when judicial economy and the use of resources favor adjudication in district court.

Braniff International Airlines, Inc. v. Aeron Aviation Resources Holdings II, Inc. (In Re Braniff International Airlines · filed 1993-09-30(d)

Having considered the above factors, the Court finds that the interest of judicial economy and utilization of resources is best served by adjudicating the rights of the parties in this Court. Therefore, the defendant’s motion to withdraw the referral under § 157(d) of the Bankruptcy Code is granted.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding when resolving it requires substantial consideration of both bankruptcy law and federal law affecting interstate commerce, and the motion is timely.

Lifemark Hospital of Louisiana, Inc. v. Liljeberg Enterprises, Inc. (In Re Liljeberg Enterprises, Inc.) · filed 1993-10-19(d)

A court must withdraw the reference from the bankruptcy court when it is established that (1) the proceeding in the bankruptcy court involves a substantial and material question of both title 11 and non-Bankruptcy Code federal law, (2) the non-Bankruptcy Code federal law has more than a de minimis effect on interstate commerce, and (3) the motion for withdrawal was timely filed.