28 U.S.C. § 157

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

McCrory Corp. v. 99¢ Only Stores (In Re McCrory Corp.) · filed 1993-10-26(d)

Such an analysis clearly necessitates significant consideration of federal trademark law. Accordingly, defendant has demonstrated that there should be mandatory withdrawal of the reference to the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to leave a non-core proceeding in bankruptcy court through pretrial proceedings despite a jury demand when judicial economy favors doing so.

Vista Metals Corp. v. Metal Brokers International, Inc. · filed 1993-10-29(d)

Although we recognize that this matter may again surface before this Court for dis-positive rulings and/or for jury trial, we nevertheless find that, based on the foregoing considerations, judicial economy is best served by keeping the underlying matter with the bankruptcy court through the pretrial process.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause when judicial review and separation of powers favor district court resolution.

United States v. Wood · filed 1993-11-18(d)

The reasoning of Schollett as adopted by petitioners presents reasons which are sufficient to support a finding that there is good cause to withdrawal the reference to the bankruptcy court. Fundamentals of judicial review and separation of powers are better served by a finding that the reference to bankruptcy should be withdrawn. The legislative intent reflects a desire to remove administrative functions from the court and place them solely within the hands of the United States Trustee. Petitioner’s motion is granted.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause, including considerations of judicial economy.

Constant v. Wilson · filed 1993-12-03(d)

A district court may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding referred to bankruptcy court, on its own motion or on timely motion by any party, for cause shown. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(d). ... Further, because the district court was already familiar with the issues and facts involved in Constant's complaints, considerations of judicial economy supported withdrawal of the bankruptcy reference and transfer of these actions to district court. Under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion by withdrawing the reference.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause, considering factors including judicial economy and the court's familiarity with the claims.

In Re James Constant, Debtor. James Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc. · filed 1993-12-03(d)

A district court may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding referred to bankruptcy court, on its own motion or on timely motion by any party, for cause shown. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157(d). The factors to be considered in determining whether to withdraw the reference include whether the proceeding is a core proceeding, judicial economy, convenience, and expertise of the court. ... Further, because Judge Real had presided over previous, virtually identical actions brought by Constant, Judge Real was familiar with the facts and claims raised by the complaint. Under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion by withdrawing the reference.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when the movant shows only routine application of a nonbankruptcy federal statute to the facts.

Rushton v. Philadelphia Forest Products, Inc. (In Re Americana Expressways, Inc.) · filed 1993-12-13(d)

In the present case, Defendant has made no showing that the Trustee’s adversary proceeding will involve anything more than the routine application of the Interstate Commerce Act to the facts. Therefore, Defendant’s motion to withdraw the reference from the bankruptcy court is denied.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of the reference of a core bankruptcy proceeding when judicial efficiency provides cause.

Pan Am Corp. v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (In Re Pan Am Corp.) · filed 1993-12-23(d)

The Adversary Proceeding is a core proceeding. Although there is a strong presumption against the withdrawal of core bankruptcy proceedings from Bankruptcy Court, that presumption can be overcome “based on a finding by the Court that the withdrawal of reference is essential to preserve a higher interest.” ... In this instance the higher interest to be served is that of promoting judicial efficiency.

Section 157 permits a district court to defer withdrawal of a core proceeding from the bankruptcy court despite a jury-trial request.

Furniture Rentors of America, Inc. v. Nynex Information Resources Co. (In re Furniture Rentors of America, Inc.) · filed 1994-01-14(d)

Having reviewed the present motion, this Court has decided to let the order of reference stand, without prejudice to renewal of the motion to withdraw at a later stage of the case, but not before the pre-trial conference.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw the reference of a bankruptcy adversary proceeding when procedural confusion makes withdrawal appropriate.

Jennings v. Tamaqua Cable Products Corp. (In re Roberts Carrier Corp.) · filed 1994-01-24(d)

Because of the procedural confusion that has developed in this case and because the underlying issue involved will reach this Court in one form or other, this Court determines that the most appropriate course of action would be to withdraw the reference of this adversary proceeding, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) requires mandatory withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when the case calls for substantial and material consideration of non-bankruptcy federal statutes regulating activities affecting interstate commerce.

Donald G. Atteberry, DVM, P.A. v. Nigerian National Petroleum Corp. (In Re Donald G. Atteberry, DVM, P.A.) · filed 1994-02-07(d)

It is enough for mandatory withdrawal when the case requires substantial and material consideration of non-bankruptcy federal statutes regulating activities affecting interstate commerce.

Section 157(d) places the burden of showing cause for withdrawal of a bankruptcy court reference on the party requesting it.

United States v. Lasalle Bank Lakeview (In re Statistical Tabulating Corp.) · filed 1994-03-21(d)

The burden of demonstrating cause for withdrawal was on the government, Vista Metals Corp. v. Metal Brokers Int’l, Inc., 161 B.R. 454, 456 (E.D.Wis.1993), which made no argument in support of its request. Therefore, the motion for withdrawal of the reference is denied.

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

Segal v. California Energy Development Corp. · filed 1994-03-31(d)

Based upon the foregoing, this Court adopts the “substantial and material” test, and determines that CEDC has failed to ... meet its burden of demonstrating that the proceeding qualifies for mandatory withdrawal.

Section 157(d) treats a district court’s retention of a case that should have been referred to bankruptcy court as a withdrawal of the reference.

Phar-Mor, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand · filed 1994-04-11(d)

We therefore treat the Phar-Mor/Coopers lawsuit as if it had been referred to the bankruptcy court and then withdrawn by the district court under § 157(d).

Section 157(d) gives the district court authority to withdraw a bankruptcy reference on its own motion or on a timely motion by a party.

Krafsur v. Clay (In re Heelco Corp.) · filed 1994-04-28(d)

Section 157(d) gives to the district court the authority to withdraw the reference, either on its own motion or on timely motion of a party.

Section 157(d) does not allow withdrawal of the reference based on a jury trial right waived by asserting a claim against the bankruptcy estate.

Lang v. Lang (In Re Lang) · filed 1994-05-11(d)

Just as a counterclaim sufficed as an informal proof of claim in Americana, Dr. Lang’s Complaint for damages arising from his state law claims amounts to a written demand against Ms. Lang’s estate and constitutes an informal proof of claim. Consequently, Dr. Lang has waived his right to a jury trial and cannot rely on such a right as cause to withdraw the reference under Section 157(d).

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy proceeding for cause when withdrawal promotes judicial economy and uniform bankruptcy administration and prevents forum shopping.

In re American Continental Corporation/Lincoln Sav. & Loan Securities Litigation · filed 1994-05-23(d)

The district court may exercise its discretion to withdraw a proceeding when withdrawal would promote judicial economy and uniformity in the administration of bankruptcy and prevent forum shopping. ... The district court did not abuse its discretion in withdrawing the dischargeability action.

Section 157(d) permits a district court’s retention of a matter subject to automatic referral to be treated as a withdrawal of reference.

Phar-Mor, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand · filed 1994-06-06(d)

We therefore treat the Phar-Mor/Coopers lawsuit as if it had been referred to the bankruptcy court and then withdrawn by the district court under Sec. 157(d).

Section 157(d) permits a bankruptcy reference to remain in place for pretrial proceedings despite a jury demand.

Berger v. Watrous & Ehlers, P.C. (In Re Kirk E. Douglas, Inc.) · filed 1994-07-19(d)

I find that judicial economy will be furthered in this case by allowing the reference to stand during the pendency of pretrial proceedings. Additionally, I find that Watrous & Ehlers’ right to a jury trial will not be adversely affected by having the bankruptcy court supervise and decide pretrial matters while continuing to anticipate jury trial in the district court of any matters requiring jury trial.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause; a challenge to the bankruptcy court’s power to impose civil contempt sanctions did not warrant withdrawal here.

Bartel v. Shugrue (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.) · filed 1994-07-28(d)

The relevant statute, 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), permits a district court to withdraw a case, in whole or in part, from the bankruptcy court, “on its own motion or on timely motion of any party, for cause shown.” ... He has also suggested that the Bankruptcy Court lacks power to adjudicate and penalize civil contempts. Both arguments are without merit, the first because it mischaracterizes what happened in the Bankruptcy Court, the second because it mischar-acterizes the law. ... For the above reasons, the motions to withdraw the reference and to strike the Trustee’s response are denied.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of the reference when deciding when a CERCLA claim arose primarily requires applying bankruptcy law.

Revere Copper & Brass, Inc. v. Acushnet Co. (In Re Revere Copper & Brass Inc.) · filed 1994-09-12(d)

In light of Chateaugay, the conclusion must be that the question of whether defendants’ CERCLA claims arose prior to or after the filing of the defendants Chapter 11 petition is primarily a bankruptcy matter, fully capable of being resolved by the bankruptcy court and not requiring withdrawal of the reference.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to defer withdrawal of a non-core proceeding requiring a jury trial until the case is ready for trial.

Hassett v. Bancohio National Bank (In Re CIS Corp.) · filed 1994-09-14(d)

The adversary proceeding is a non-core proceeding in which the defendant has the right to a jury trial. Nevertheless, for reasons of efficiency and uniformity, the motion to withdraw the reference is denied, with leave to renew once the case is ready for trial.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding when it primarily presents Bankruptcy Code issues and requires no substantial consideration of nonbankruptcy federal statutes.

Ponce Marine Farm, Inc. v. Browner (In Re Ponce Marine Farm, Inc.) · filed 1994-09-16(d)

In applying this standard to the instant case, the Court finds that withdrawal of reference is not mandated. First, the fundamental matters to be considered by the bankruptcy court in ruling on the injunction are primarily bankruptcy code issues, including determining whether the EPA order is a “claim” and what kind of treatment said claim is entitled to. Second, the bankruptcy court’s resolution of the adversary proceeding will not require “material and substantial” consideration of non-bankruptcy statutes.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to deny a premature motion to withdraw a non-core proceeding when judicial economy favors leaving it in bankruptcy court until trial.

Bianco v. Hoehn (In Re Gaston & Snow) · filed 1994-10-31(d)

The Court, however, finds that the motion to withdraw the reference is premature on each of the asserted grounds. ... The interests of judicial economy and sound judicial administration suggest that Defendants’ motion to withdraw the reference be denied at this time.

Section 157(d) permits a district court that has withdrawn a bankruptcy reference to decide both core and noncore issues when there is a right to a jury trial or the case requires consideration of a qualifying federal statute outside the Bankruptcy Code.

F.D.I.C. v. Keller · filed 1994-11-15(d)

After the withdrawal of the reference to the bankruptcy court, the district court has the authority to determine both core and noncore issues when, as here, there is a right to jury trial, see Ameritel Corp. v. Isotec Communications, Inc., 109 B.R. 965, 967-68 (D.Or.1990), or the case requires consideration of a federal statute not in the bankruptcy code regulating an organization affecting interstate commerce.

Mandatory withdrawal under § 157(d) requires substantial and material consideration of nonbankruptcy federal law.

Rannd Resources, Inc. v. Von Harten (In re Rannd Resources, Inc.) · filed 1994-12-01(d)

Based upon the forgoing, this Court adopts the majority view and finds that withdrawal ...of reference under § 157(d) is mandatory only if resolution of the issues requires “substantial and material” consideration of non-bankruptcy code statutes.

Section 157(d) permits a district court, for cause shown, to withdraw bankruptcy proceedings for consolidation with a related action before it.

Congress Credit Corporation v. Ajc International, Inc. · filed 1994-12-15(d)

The power of the district court to consolidate the preference actions now pending in the bankruptcy court with the instant diversity Hen action rests on its power to withdraw a case from the bankruptcy court “for cause shown.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) (1988).

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when the movant fails to show that its nonbankruptcy federal claims involve novel issues of law.

In Re E & S Facilities, Inc. · filed 1995-02-01(d)

Thus, because UNG has not established that its RICO claims involve novel issues of law warranting district court examination, we find no basis for mandatory withdrawal of the reference.

A pending motion to withdraw the reference does not end the bankruptcy court’s authority to administer the case; that authority continues until the district court withdraws the reference.

Weinman v. Fidelity Capital Appreciation Fund (In Re Integra Realty Resources, Inc.) · filed 1995-02-08(d)

Pursuant to the applicable statutory provisions and the general order of reference, this Court retains jurisdiction and continues with the administration of the case until the reference is actually withdrawn by the District Court.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal merely because a bankruptcy judge must decide nonbankruptcy issues; the movant must show an issue of first impression or a conflict between the Bankruptcy Code and nonbankruptcy law.

C-TC 9th Avenue Partnership v. Norton Co. (In Re C-TC 9th Avenue Partnership) · filed 1995-02-13(d)

As stated earlier, the mere fact that the bankruptcy judge is forced to determine issues outside the scope of bankruptcy laws is insufficient to mandate withdrawal until and unless the movant can demonstrate that such issues are one of first impression or that there is a conflict between the Code and non-Code cases.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to deny withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when the asserted need for a jury trial rests on a demand the bankruptcy court has struck.

After Six, Inc. v. Sharpe's Formal Specialists, Inc. (In re After Six, Inc.) · filed 1995-03-17(d)

In light of the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling and order to the contrary, therefore, we are not convinced that cause exists to grant the motion for withdrawal of the reference.

Section 157(d) requires mandatory withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when resolution requires consideration of a specific provision of title 11 and substantial and material consideration of a qualifying federal statute.

John Hine Studios, Inc. v. Wasserman (In Re Merryweather Importers, Inc.) · filed 1995-03-24(d)

Consequently, this Court concludes that mandatory withdrawal is not required under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), in that this case does not involve consideration both of a specific provision of title 11 and substantial and material consideration of a qualifying federal statute.

Section 157(d) leaves motions properly before the bankruptcy court for that court to decide until the reference is withdrawn.

C-TC 9th Avenue Partnership v. Norton Co. (In Re C-TC 9th Avenue Partnership) · filed 1995-04-29(d)

Motions made on matters properly before the Bankruptcy Court must be dealt with by that court unless and until reference to that court has been withdrawn mandatorily or discretionarily pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of the reference for a proceeding that determines ownership of a tax refund from a consolidated return.

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Overland Park Financial Corp. · filed 1995-05-05(d)

Section 157(d) mandates withdrawal when the proceeding “requires consideration of both Title 11 and other laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce.” The issue before the bankruptcy court in the adversary proceeding involves the ownership of the tax refund which the Parent Corporation received as the result of the filing of a consolidated tax return. The court does not believe this is a case requiring mandatory withdrawal.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to defer withdrawal of a non-core proceeding while the bankruptcy court handles pretrial matters, even if a jury trial may later be needed.

Keene Corp. v. Williams Bailey & Wesner, L.L.P. (In Re Keene Corp.) · filed 1995-05-10(d)

While it is clear that the bankruptcy court may not conduct a jury trial in this non-core proceeding, it does not necessarily follow that the reference must be withdrawn at this time. ... Therefore, the motion to withdraw the reference is not ripe at this time and will only become ripe if and when this matter proceeds to trial.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause when withdrawal serves judicial economy.

Big Rivers Elec. Corp. v. Green River Coal Co., Inc. · filed 1995-05-24(d)

Consequently, the Court finds that cause exists to withdraw the reference to the bankruptcy court as to the adversary proceeding based on concerns of judicial economy.

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

Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (In Re Federated Department Stores, I · filed 1995-06-30(d)

The consideration of non-bankruptcy federal law must be “substantial and material” before Section 157(d) compels withdrawal.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding when the nonbankruptcy federal claims present no particularly complex issues, question of first impression, or conflict with the Bankruptcy Code.

Houbigant, Inc. v. ACB Mercantile, Inc. (In Re Houbigant, Inc.) · filed 1995-08-24(d)

The Lanham and Tariff Act claims in this case do not appear extraordinarily complicated. In the absence of particularly complex issues, a case of first impression or a conflict between non-Title XI federal law and the Bankruptcy Code, withdrawal in this case is not mandated.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of the reference when an effective jury demand in a non-core adversary proceeding requires trial in district court.

Grella v. Zimmerman (In re Art & Co.) · filed 1995-08-22(d)

For the reasons stated in this Memorandum, the court concludes that a jury demand made in an adversary proceeding may not be withdrawn without the consent of all parties. The defendants’ motion to strike is ... DENIED, and the plaintiffs motion to withdraw the reference is ALLOWED.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of the reference when resolving a proceeding requires substantial and material consideration of a federal statute outside the Bankruptcy Code that affects interstate commerce.

Schlein v. Golub (In Re Schlein) · filed 1995-10-23(d)

These inquiries necessitate the substantial and material consideration of RICO, which triggers the mandatory withdrawal provision of § 157(d).

Section 157(d) does not warrant withdrawing a bankruptcy reference for a civil contempt proceeding when the bankruptcy judge has authority to conduct it.

In Re Alpern · filed 1995-11-01(d)

Section 157(d) states in relevant part, “the district court may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case referred under this section, on its own motion or on the timely motion of any party, for cause shown.” ... Because Judge James has the authority to conduct a civil contempt proceeding in accordance with Rule 9020, we find that no good cause has been shown for withdrawing the reference to the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(d) permits discretionary withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when a potential conflict with the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and concerns about international comity and foreign policy warrant it.

Underwood v. Russian Space Agency (In Re Rimsat, Ltd.) · filed 1995-11-07(d)

This court also agrees with Judge Grant’s analysis with respect to discretionary withdrawal and adopts his conclusion that discretionary withdrawal is appropriate in the present case. As Judge Grant has set forth in more detail, this case presents a potential conflict between the Bankruptcy Code and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Additionally, at present, issues of international comity and foreign policy appear to exist. Thus, as a discretionary matter, this court will grant the defendants’ motion to withdraw reference.

Section 157(d) does not provide cause to withdraw a bankruptcy court reference merely because the bankruptcy judge requires parties with cross-motions for summary judgment to submit a joint statement of facts.

Hassett v. Citicorp North America, Inc. (In Re CIS Corp.) · filed 1995-11-07(d)

CNA has failed to demonstrate either cause for the withdrawal of the reference of this case to bankruptcy court or exceptional circumstances that justify granting leave to formally appeal Judge Abram’s interlocutory order. Judge Abram’s instruction that the parties generate a joint statement of facts seems a fair and appropriate requirement in a case in which parties have cross-moved for summary judgment on the interpretation of undisputed contractual language.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to defer withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference until the case is ready for trial, even when a jury trial may provide cause for withdrawal.

Disbursing Agent of the Hardesty Estate v. Severson (In Re Hardesty) · filed 1995-11-29(d)

Even if a jury trial may constitute cause for withdrawal, the district court may decline to withdraw the reference until the case is ready for trial.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference merely because the bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction over a related third-party claim that can be litigated separately.

Halvajian v. Bank of New York, N.A. · filed 1995-12-15(d)

Even though the bankruptcy court does not have jurisdiction over BNY’s proposed Third-Party Complaint, this Court is not persuaded that cause exists to justify withdrawing the reference from the bankruptcy court. The Court is confident that New Jersey law would not bar a subsequent indemnification suit by BNY against Nelson even if it arises out of the same nucleus of operative fact as the action currently before the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to deny withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference as premature when the case is not ready for trial and judicial efficiency favors continued proceedings in bankruptcy court.

Hunnicutt Co. v. TJX Companies, Inc. (In Re Ames Department Stores, Inc.) · filed 1995-12-31(d)

Hunnicutt has not offered reasons sufficient to withdraw the reference at this time. The case is not yet ready for trial and Judge Goodman’s familiarity with the circumstances of the Ames bankruptcy and the TJX lease guarantees continues to promote the smooth and efficient resolution of Hunnicutt’s claim. ... Having reviewed the Orion factors in light of the circumstances of this case, the Court finds that withdrawal of the reference under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) is not appropriate at this time.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of the bankruptcy reference when an objection requires consideration of the Coal Act.

UMWA 1992 Benefit Plan v. Leckie Smokeless Coal Co. · filed 1996-04-16(d)

Because Plaintiffs’ Objection required consideration of non-bankruptcy law, namely the Coal Act, withdrawal of reference of Plaintiffs’ Objection was mandatory pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding when nonbankruptcy federal claims require only routine application of settled law, rather than substantial and material consideration of that law.

Mayer v. BellSouth Telecommunications (In Re Mayer) · filed 1996-07-30(d)

The Court finds that the proceeding in the bankruptcy court does not involve a substantial and material question of both title 11 and non-Bankruptcy Code federal law. Debtor’s § 1983 and due process claims, as well as the claim pursuant to the FDCPA do not necessitate “substantial and material” consideration of non-bankruptcy laws. Rather, they simply require rote application of well-settled principles of law to the facts before the court.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference merely because the proceeding calls for routine application of settled nonbankruptcy federal law.

Mayer v. Entergy New Orleans, Inc. (In re Mayer) · filed 1996-08-12(d)

In addition, simple application of fixed legal standards provided by such non-bankruptcy laws to a given set of facts does not necessarily trigger mandatory withdrawal.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a matter referred to a bankruptcy court upon a showing of cause.

South Street Seaport Ltd. Partnership v. Burger Boys, Inc. (In re Burger Boys, Inc.) · filed 1996-08-28(d)

The district court could obtain jurisdiction over the merits of the third extension motion by withdrawing the reference to the bankruptcy court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). Withdrawal under § 157(d) requires a showing of cause, a term which § 157(d) does not define.

Section 157(d) allows a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause, considering core status, judicial efficiency, costs and delay, uniformity of bankruptcy administration, and forum shopping.

In Re Burger Boys, Inc. · filed 1996-08-28(d)

Withdrawal under § 157(d) requires a showing of cause, a term which § 157(d) does not define. ... We have previously held, however, that in deciding whether to withdraw an issue from the bankruptcy court, the district court should weigh several factors, of which the first is the most important: (1) whether the claim is core or non-core, (2) what is the most efficient use of judicial resources, (3) what is the delay and what are the costs to the parties, (4) what will promote uniformity of bankruptcy administration, (5) what will prevent forum shopping, and (6) other related factors.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause when judicial economy and the prevention of forum shopping favor hearing the proceeding in district court.

Wechsler v. Squadron, Ellenoff, Plesent, & Sheinfeld LLP · filed 1996-09-04(d)

In the interests, therefore, of judicial economy, and because we find it eminently reasonable, we affirm the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. ... “The district court may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding referred [to the Bankruptcy Court] under this section, on its own motion or on timely motion of any party, for cause shown.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). ... This Court finds that it is in the interests of justice and judicial economy that the District Court hear the related Trustee action against Squadron Ellenoff rather than the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding when resolving it requires interpretation of a nonbankruptcy federal statute or analysis of significant unresolved issues under that law.

In re Vicars Insurance Agency, Inc. · filed 1996-09-19(d)

We therefore hold that as far as non-title 11 issues are presented, mandatory withdrawal is required only when those issues require the interpretation, as opposed to mere application, of the non-title 11 statute, or when the court must undertake analysis of significant open and unresolved issues regarding the non-title 11 law.

Section 157(d) requires sufficient cause to withdraw a bankruptcy reference, and inadequate briefing can justify denying withdrawal.

Smith v. East Hill Manufacturing Corp. (In re East Hill Manufacturing Corp.) · filed 1996-09-19(d)

In relevant part, 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) provides: “The district court may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding referred under this section, on its own motion or on timely motion of any party, for good cause shown.” ... Such inadequate briefing, in and of itself, provides a reason to deny the relief requested. ... In short, EHMC has not shown sufficient cause for withdrawing the reference of the instant adversary proceeding.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a referred motion to lift the automatic stay for cause, including judicial efficiency, even though the motion is a core proceeding.

Crown Heights Jewish Community Council, Inc. v. Fischer (In Re Fischer) · filed 1996-10-10(d)

Turning to the matter at bar, although a motion to lift the automatic stay is a “core” determination, see 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(G) (defining core proceedings to include motions to terminate, annul, or modify the automatic stay), the totality of the circumstances militates strongly in favor of the withdrawal of this reference so that this Court may decide this motion.

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

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. Smith Corona Corp. (In Re Smith Corona Corp.) · filed 1996-10-18(d)

Considering the express ERISA language, the Court concludes that by requesting that the Bankruptcy Court perform its mandated role, Smith Corona’s Distress Termination Motion involves a straightforward application of the relevant section and does not implicate substantial and material consideration of ERISA, and therefore, withdrawal is not mandated on this issue.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for routine admiralty considerations, and allows the district court to decline discretionary withdrawal.

Adams v. S/V "Tenacious," · filed 1996-10-29(d)

Any consideration of admiralty law would therefore be routine. Thus, there is no mandatory right to withdrawal. Nor, given the fact that this is a run-of-the-mill bankruptcy case, should the Court exercise its discretion to require a permissive withdrawal.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when litigating overlapping claims in separate forums would waste judicial resources.

Zahn v. Yucaipa Capital Fund (In Re Almac's, Inc.) · filed 1996-11-15(d)

It is well-recognized that preventing such a waste of judicial resources may trigger use of § 157(d).

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause, considering whether the proceeding is core, whether a jury trial was requested, and whether withdrawal serves judicial economy.

NDEP Corp. v. Handl-It, Inc. (In Re NDEP Corp.) · filed 1996-12-30(d)

As previously indicated, in exercising discretion to grant or deny a motion to withdraw the reference, this Court will consider whether the claim is a core bankruptcy proceeding or whether it is non-core; whether the parties have requested a jury trial; and whether withdrawal would serve judicial economy, such as the goals of promoting uniformity in bankruptcy administration, reducing forum shopping and confusion, fostering the economical use of the debtors’ and creditors’ resources, and expediting the bankruptcy process.

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

Homeland Stores, Inc. v. Burris (In Re Homeland Stores, Inc.) · filed 1997-01-24(d)

Thus, Continental Airlines is dissimilar from this adversary action, and does not dispel the conclusion that a substantial and material consideration of federal law outside the Bankruptcy Code is necessary to resolve the adversary proceeding between Homeland and the Trustees. Withdrawal of the adversary proceeding is mandatory under section 157(d).

Section 157 requires a bankruptcy court that finds a valid constitutional challenge to submit proposed findings to the district court and recommend withdrawal of the reference; if it finds no valid challenge, it retains jurisdiction over the core proceeding.

Headrick v. Georgia (In Re Headrick) · filed 1996-12-17(c)(1), (d)

The bankruptcy court must address the issue presented and if the court determines a valid constitutional challenge exists, the bankruptcy court must submit proposed findings to the district court with a recommendation to withdraw the reference as to the constitutional challenge. 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), (d). If the bankruptcy court determines, as I do here, that no valid constitutional challenge to the statute exists, it is incumbent upon the bankruptcy court to retain jurisdiction and resolve, as here, the core proceeding.

Section 157(d) permits discretionary withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference based on factors including judicial economy, uniform bankruptcy administration, party resources, delay, and a jury trial request.

Carmel v. Galam (In Re Larry's Apartment, L.L.C.) · filed 1997-03-17(d)

Factors affecting a discretionary withdrawal pursuant to § 157(d) include: judicial economy; whether withdrawal would promote uniformity of bankruptcy administration; reduction of forum shopping and confusion; conservation of debtor and creditor resources; expedition of the bankruptcy process; and whether a jury trial has been requested.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when resolving the proceeding requires significant interpretation of a nonbankruptcy federal statute.

Bousa, Inc. v. United States (In Re Bulk Oil (USA), Inc.) · filed 1997-05-14(d)

Such a determination would, in this ease, require the bankruptcy judge to engage in significant interpretation as opposed to simple application of TSUS. Accordingly, withdrawal of the reference is mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference merely because admiralty law is involved; substantive admiralty law must require more than pro forma attention.

O'Hara Corp. v. F/V NORTH STAR · filed 1997-07-24(d)

The only basis for mandatory withdrawal is the obvious fact that admiralty is involved here as well as bankruptcy. But the plaintiff offers no indication that substantive admiralty law will actually require other than pro forma attention and the vessel owner says the plaintiff’s hen is uneontested. Thus, there is no cause for mandatory withdrawal.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause, considering judicial efficiency, costs and delay, uniformity of bankruptcy administration, and forum shopping.

Security Farms v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffers, Warehousemen & Helpers · filed 1997-08-22(d)

In determining whether cause exists, a district court should consider the efficient use of judicial resources, delay and costs to the parties, uniformity of bankruptcy administration, the prevention of forum shopping, and other related factors.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding based on a jury demand when the party has waived the right to a jury trial by invoking the bankruptcy court’s equitable jurisdiction.

Mendelsohn v. Lissauer (In Re Mindeco Corp.) · filed 1997-09-12(d)

Accordingly, the Court finds that Lissauer, by invoking the bankruptcy court’s equitable jurisdiction, and asserting his counterclaims, has waived his right to a jury trial, and withdrawal of this adversary proceeding is inappropriate. As a result, the defendant’s motion for “withdrawal of the reference” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) and (e), is denied.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference to consider the Tucker Act because that jurisdictional statute does not regulate organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce.

Coe-Truman Technologies, Inc. v. United States Government · filed 1997-10-22(d)

As the Tucker Act merely defines the threshold jurisdictional issue of whether suit may be brought against the defendant, we do not believe that it constitutes a law of the “United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce” as contemplated by 157(d).

Section 157(d) permits the district court, but not a bankruptcy judge, to withdraw a case or proceeding referred to a bankruptcy judge.

Moore, Owen, Thomas & Co. v. Coffey · filed 1998-02-27(d)

An order of reference may only be terminated upon the action of a judge of the district court which referred the matter, not the bankruptcy judge to which it is referred. A bankruptcy judge lacks any colorable authority or jurisdiction to rule on any motion to transfer a case back to the district court and has absolutely no authority to vacate a duly entered order of reference of the district court.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding when its resolution does not require substantial and material consideration of non-bankruptcy federal law.

In Re White Metal Rolling and Stamping Corp. · filed 1998-03-25(d)

Clearly, the bankruptcy court can decide whether the Tax Matters Agreement encompassed the NOLs at issue here, and to what extent, if any, White Metal received compensation either through the rer duction of intercompany debt or as payments for tax benefits enjoyed by the Drew Group, without the substantial and material consideration of non-bankruptcy law.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference on its own motion for cause, including when unusual circumstances favor handling related proceedings in one court.

Federal Trade Commission v. American Institute for Research & Development · filed 1998-03-31(d)

After considering the above factors, the court will act on its own motion and order withdrawal of the bankruptcy petition. It is true, as counsel for BayBank and the four individual claimants point out, that withdrawal of a reference is to be reserved for an unusual circumstance. But the situation here clearly qualifies.

Section 157(d) requires mandatory withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when resolving the proceeding calls for significant interpretation of nonbankruptcy federal law.

Mishkin v. Ageloff · filed 1998-03-31(d)

With respect to mandatory withdrawal, case law in this circuit is well-settled that in order to grant mandatory withdrawal, I must find that the matters raised in these proceedings or claims require “significant interpretation, as opposed to simple application” of non-bankruptcy federal law.

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

Internal Revenue Service v. CM Holdings, Inc. (In Re CM Holdings, Inc.) · filed 1998-05-29(d)

In conclusion, the Court finds there are two unsettled tax issues of first impression which require substantial and material consideration of federal tax law, outside the parameters of the Bankruptcy Code, in order to resolve this contested matter between Camelot and the IRS. Withdrawal of this contested matter is therefore mandatory under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when the proceeding merely applies nonbankruptcy law to the facts without significantly interpreting it.

Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund v. Westmoreland Coal Co. (In Re Westmoreland Coal C · filed 1998-06-01(d)

A distinction must be made between proceedings requiring “significant interpretation” of non-bankruptcy law and those merely applying such law to the facts. If the court is only required to do the latter, then mandatory withdrawal is not warranted.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to deny withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when the balance of relevant factors favors the bankruptcy court’s initial resolution of a core matter.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Churchill Securities, Inc. (In Re Churchill Mortgage Investment Corp.) · filed 1998-06-30(d)

Although there are some reasons which favor a withdrawal of the reference, an overall balancing of the Burger Boys factors in this indisputably core matter compels the conclusion that the reference should not be withdrawn at this time.

Section 157(d) requires a district judge to withdraw a bankruptcy reference before hearing the referred matter, but failure to do so does not remove subject-matter jurisdiction and warrants reversal only if a party objects.

The Home Insurance Company of Illinois v. Adco Oil Company · filed 1998-09-04(d)

No motion was made, and no cause was shown, in this case. But a judge’s failure to follow orderly procedures for allocating bankruptcy matters within a district court does not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction. It is an error, no doubt, but the kind of error that leads to reversal only if a party protests.

Section 157(d) mandates withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when resolution of the proceeding requires consideration of non-Title 11 laws.

Joe v. Amway Corp. · filed 1998-10-07(d)

The Court finds that resolution of the Adversary Proceeding requires consideration of non-Title 11 laws and that withdrawal of the reference is mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

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

In Re Sahni · filed 1998-11-19(d)

Accordingly, the court finds that withdrawal is not mandatory under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a referred case or proceeding for cause shown.

In Re Corporacion De Servicios Medico Hospitalarios De Fajardo · filed 1998-12-10(d)

As the statute provides, a permissive withdrawal of reference may occur only “for cause shown.”

Section 157(d) allows a district court to withdraw a referred case or proceeding, in whole or in part, on its own motion or on a timely motion for cause shown.

Moore, Owen, Thomas & Co. v. Coffey (In Re Kool, Mann, Coffee & Co.) · filed 1999-02-27(d)

Once a district court refers a case or proceeding to a bankruptcy judge, the only way that reference can be withdrawn is through the procedure outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for judicial economy and allows the court to limit withdrawal to a claim against one defendant.

Addison v. United States Department of Education (In Re Addison) · filed 1999-09-03(d)

Therefore, the interest of judicial economy dictates that this Court should exercise permissive withdrawal and adjudicate this matter now, rather than awaiting the determination of the bankruptcy court. Section 157(d) allows the Court to withdraw the action in whole or in part. Accordingly, the Court withdraws reference of this case only as it relates to Plaintiffs claim against Defendant State.

Section 157(d) does not require a second withdrawal of the reference for a dispute ancillary to litigation whose reference has already been withdrawn.

County of Orange v. Merrill Lynch & Co. (In Re County of Orange) · filed 1999-11-10(d)

Responding parties argue that, since there was a general reference to the bankruptcy court of all matters relating to the Orange County bankruptcy case, the reference should not be withdrawn for this application unless there is “cause shown” under § 157(d). However, this fee dispute is ancillary to this Court’s jurisdiction over liability litigation by the County and Representative against third parties. The reference has already been properly withdrawn for those lawsuits, and so it is already “withdrawn” for this ancillary dispute. It is not necessary or appropriate to “withdraw” the matter a second time for this fee dispute.

When a district court withdraws and decides a non-core issue, a later remand for further proceedings does not return that issue to the bankruptcy court.

Empresas Omajede, Inc. v. La Electronica, Inc. · filed 1999-12-15(d)

In the instant case, the issue regarding the validity of the lease agreement was a non-core issue which was withdrawn to and subsequently adjudicated by the District Court. Although the case was remanded for further adjudication, the non-core issues were not before the Bankruptcy Court. The consideration of these issues had been withdrawn.

Section 157(d) requires cause for permissive withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference; proper handling of the case by the bankruptcy court does not supply cause.

Dionne v. Simmons (In Re Simmons) · filed 2000-01-11(d)

We conclude that the case was not being handled inappropriately by the bankruptcy court, and the district court was mistaken in believing that it was. The bankruptcy court's actions were not cause for withdrawing the reference to the bankruptcy court under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) requires cause to withdraw a case from the bankruptcy court; the bankruptcy court’s appropriate handling of the case does not supply cause.

Dionne v. Simmons · filed 2000-01-11(d)

The bankruptcy court's actions were not cause for withdrawing the reference to the bankruptcy court under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause even when withdrawal is not required.

Malone v. Norwest Financial California, Inc. · filed 2000-02-03(d)

Although, under such circumstances, the court is not required to withdraw the matter from the bankruptcy court, ... the court, nonetheless, finds cause for withdrawal.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of the reference when resolving the proceeding requires only a simple application of settled law.

Camden Ordnance Mfg. Co. of Arkansas, Inc. v. United States Trustee (In Re Camden Ordnance Mfg. Co. of Arkansas, Inc.) · filed 2000-03-09(d)

Therefore, this action does not require complex interpretation of non-title 11 federal law. Rather, this case, requires simple application of well settled law and therefore, mandatory withdrawal is not implicated in this case.

Section 157(d) requires mandatory withdrawal only when nonbankruptcy federal law demands substantial and material consideration beyond a straightforward application of settled law.

Hvide Marine Towing, Inc. v. Kimbrell (In Re Hvide Marie Inc.) · filed 2000-05-25(d)

The second approach appears to be the better-reasoned one. ... Applying the “substantial and material” test to this case, withdrawal of the reference under the mandatory provision must be denied.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal from the bankruptcy court when approving a CERCLA settlement requires substantial and material consideration of CERCLA.

Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Voluntary Purchasing Groups, Inc. · filed 2000-08-28(d)

The court thus concludes that the process of approving VPG’s environmental settlement agreements with the State necessarily involves the substantial and material consideration of CERCLA and not merely its straightforward application to the facts of this case.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause; the court considers whether withdrawal would promote judicial economy and efficient use of the parties’ resources.

EquiMed, Inc. v. Steadfast Insurance (In Re EquiMed, Inc.) · filed 2000-10-20(d)

On this record, movant Russell has not convinced the Court that withdrawal of the Coverage Action would promote judicial economy and the economic use of the parties’ resources.

Section 157(d) requires cause for discretionary withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding, with judicial economy and the use of the parties’ resources relevant to that decision.

Keystone Oncology, LLC v. Cohen (In Re Equimed, Inc.) · filed 2001-02-12(d)

On the record here, this Court, in the exercise of its discretionary authority, concludes that the Trustee has not shown cause for withdrawal of reference of the Keystone Adversary Proceeding. The Trustee has not convinced the Court that withdrawal of that case would promote judicial economy and the economic use of the parties’ resources.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of the bankruptcy court reference when a constitutional challenge requires interpretation of non-title 11 law.

Educational Credit Management Corp. v. Barnes · filed 2001-02-26(d)

After reviewing ECMC’s latest arguments, the Court must agree that 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) requires that the issue of whether 34 C.F.R. § 682.410(b)(2) is unconstitutional as applied in this case should be heard by this Court rather than the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(d) requires a party seeking withdrawal of a proceeding from bankruptcy court to move the district court; the bankruptcy judge cannot transfer the proceeding.

Blackwell v. Zollino (In Re Blackwell for the Estate of I.G. Services Ltd.) · filed 2001-03-20(d)

Because Zollino has refused to consent to a jury trial and to entry of final orders by this court, this case cannot statutorily or constitutionally be tried in the bankruptcy court. This court, however, is nonetheless powerless to transfer or refer the case to the district court. Zollino must therefore file a motion with the district court to withdraw the reference.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference when efficiency and judicial economy provide cause.

Federal Trade Commission v. First Alliance Mortgage Co. (In Re First Alliance Mortgage Co.) · filed 2001-04-30(d)

Thus, the Court holds that permissive withdrawal of the reference for the approximately 2,000 individual borrowers’ claims is warranted because of efficiency and judicial economy.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a core proceeding for efficiency when its facts and issues overlap with a case pending in district court.

1800Postcards, Inc. v. Morel · filed 2001-06-18(d)

The reference of the core proceeding may be withdrawn in the interests of efficiency when it presents an “overlapping of facts, transactions, and issues” with a case pending before the district court.

Section 157(d) requires mandatory withdrawal only when resolving the proceeding calls for substantial and material consideration of non-Bankruptcy Code law.

Hunderup v. Fesmire (In Re Southern Industrial Mechanical Corp.) · filed 2001-09-12(d)

Withdrawal is mandatory only when substantial and material consideration of non-Bankruptcy Code law is necessary for resolution of the ease. The mere fact that a bankruptcy court must consider non-bankruptcy statutes in order to resolve a dispute is not grounds for mandatory withdrawal.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw the entire reference of an adversary proceeding when judicial economy supports withdrawal.

Northwestern Institute of Psychiatry, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. (In re Northwestern Institute of Psychiatry, Inc.) · filed 2001-09-20(d)

After considering the In re Pruitt factors, this Court finds that it will be judicially *112 economical to withdraw the entire reference of adversary action No. 01-656 from the Bankruptcy Court and transfer the adversary matter to the District Court.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw an entire adversary proceeding from bankruptcy court when cause is shown and judicial economy favors withdrawal.

NORTHWESTERN INST. OF PSYCH. v. Travelers Indem. · filed 2001-11-08(d)

As previously noted, this Court must consider the principles of promoting judicial economy when considering whether to withdrawal of a reference pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). After considering the In re Pruitt factors, this Court finds that it will be judicially economical to withdraw the entire reference of adversary action No. 01-656 from the Bankruptcy Court and transfer the adversary matter to the District Court.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding that is not yet ready for trial.

Mishkin v. Ageloff (In Re Adler, Coleman Clearing Corp.) · filed 2001-12-07(d)

Thus, Fiero cannot avail itself of the mandatory withdrawal provision of § 157(d) at this stage in its adversary proceeding, when the matter is far from trial-ready.

Section 157(d) did not require withdrawal of the bankruptcy reference for the maritime claims in this case.

In Re Millenium Sea Carriers, Inc. · filed 2002-03-25(d)

That lack of jurisdictional power would still exist, it seems to me, even if I were to regard the maritime nature of Omni’s claims against the MEXICO and Millenium as mandating a withdrawal of the reference under § 157(d). But I do not regard withdrawal as mandatory in this case.

Section 157(d) requires a party seeking discretionary withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference to show cause, taking account of core status, jury rights, and consent.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. TSG Equity Fund, L.P. (In Re Envisionet Computer Services, Inc.) · filed 2002-04-05(d)

The Court FINDS that Defendants have failed to carry their burden of establishing cause for withdrawal of the reference at this time. Until the bankruptcy court determines the core/non-core nature of the claims, whether Defendants are entitled to a jury trial on any claims, and whether Defendants have consented to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction, this Court cannot determine whether factors favoring withdrawal are sufficiently present to warrant such a course of action.

Section 157(d) requires the party seeking discretionary withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference to show cause; the court cannot assess that cause until the bankruptcy court determines whether the claims are core or noncore.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Blease (In Re Envisionet Computer Services, Inc.) · filed 2002-04-11(d)

The Court finds that Defendants have failed to carry their burden of establishing cause for withdrawal of the reference at this time. Until the bankruptcy court determines the core/noncore nature of the claims, this Court cannot determine whether factors favoring withdrawal are sufficiently present to warrant such a course of action.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal on a party’s motion when resolving the proceeding requires consideration of both Title 11 and another federal law regulating interstate commerce.

Laborers' Pension Trust Fund-Detroit & Vicinity v. Kiefer (In Re Kiefer) · filed 2002-04-17(d)

Section 157(d), as discussed above, mandates withdrawal whenever “resolution of the proceeding requires consideration of both title 11 and other laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce,” and ERISA is obviously a statute that affects interstate commerce.

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

Holland v. LTV Steel Company, Inc. · filed 2002-05-29(d)

Therefore, it is the determination of this Court that withdrawal of this matter is not required by Section 157(d) because the trial court shall not substantially and materially consider non-bankruptcy Federal law.

Section 157(d) requires an existing bankruptcy proceeding before a district court may withdraw the reference; filing a proof of claim alone does not initiate one.

McMillan v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. (In Re Trans World Airlines, Inc.) · filed 2002-07-17(d)

Although McMillan has filed a claim against the bankrupt estate, the filing of this claim does not initiate or constitute a proceeding that may be withdrawn. As a result, there exists no proceeding to be removed to this court. Therefore, the motion to withdraw the reference will be denied.

Section 157(d) allows a district court to withdraw the reference of a bankruptcy case on its own motion when cause is shown.

Canter v. Canter (In re Canter) · filed 2002-08-15(d)

The Bankruptcy Code provides that the district court may withdraw the reference of a bankruptcy case on its own motion for cause shown. 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) (Supp. V 1987). However, the district court failed to articulate any cause for its withdrawal of reference in this case.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a referred bankruptcy case or proceeding, in whole or in part, for cause shown.

Millennium Studios, Inc. v. Man Roland, Inc. (In Re Millennium Studios, Inc.) · filed 2002-11-22(d)

Defendant seeks the permissive withdrawal of the reference of this adversary proceeding to the bankruptcy court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), which provides in pertinent part, “The district court may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding referred under this section, on its own motion or on timely motion of any party, for cause shown.” ... Having noted the close and significant relationship between Plaintiffs claims and its bankruptcy case, this court nevertheless finds that, with regard to the substantive law on which Plaintiffs claims are based, this adversary proceeding is not related enough to the field of bankruptcy law to be appropriately subject to the jurisdiction of and final determination by a bankruptcy court. This court will grant the permissive withdrawal of reference of Plaintiffs state contract and tort law-based adversary proceeding to the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(d) governs withdrawal of a bankruptcy case reference and may leave jurisdiction over a nonbankruptcy claim unconfirmed in the bankruptcy court.

Holland v. LTV Steel Co. (In re LTV Steel Co.) · filed 2002-12-23(d)

Despite this Court’s reluctance to exercise jurisdiction where a plain reading of 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) leads to the conclusion that jurisdiction in this case has not been conferred to this Court by Congress, nevertheless, this Court feels compelled to decide this case because of the prior District Court Order denying the motion to withdraw the reference.

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

United States v. G-I Holdings, Inc. (In Re G-I Holdings, Inc.) · filed 2003-05-13(d)

Because substantial and material consideration of the competing non-bankruptcy legal standards must be undertaken, withdrawal is mandatory pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference requires a continuing basis for federal jurisdiction; a court cannot entertain the motion after all bankruptcy proceedings have concluded.

Gibbons v. Anton Noll, Inc. · filed 2003-05-22(d)

This is especially true when a party in an adversary proceeding attempts to withdraw a matter that originated in bankruptcy proceedings to the District Court long after the underlying bankruptcy case is dismissed and after all bankruptcy-related proceedings have concluded. ... Given the final disposition of all bankruptcy proceedings on February 7, 2003, there is no jurisdictional basis for entertaining Fry’s motion in federal court.

A party's refusal to consent to a jury trial in bankruptcy court supports withdrawal of the reference only if the party is entitled to a jury trial.

M C Contractors, Inc. v. Fink (Fink) · filed 2003-06-05(d)

However, what Plaintiff fails to recognize is that its argument has force only if it is entitled to a jury trial. Because the Court concludes that Plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial in this dischargeability proceeding, the Court denies the Plaintiffs Motion for Withdrawal of Reference.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a reference only for a proceeding that was properly referred to the bankruptcy court in the first place.

Porter v. NationsCredit Consumer Discount Co. (In Re Porter) · filed 2003-06-19(d)

It thus follows that, under section 157(d), the district court may only withdraw from the bankruptcy court the reference of those proceedings which were properly referred initially: viz., those within the scope of section 1334(b).

Section 157(d) permits a district court to deny withdrawal of a core bankruptcy proceeding when judicial efficiency and uniformity favor keeping it in bankruptcy court, even if a party demands a jury trial.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Enron Corp. Ex Rel. Enron Corp. v. Lay (In Re Enron Corp.) · filed 2003-06-23(d)

Because the issues implicated in the Adversary Proceeding are core bankruptcy issues and because the other factors concerning judicial efficiency and uniformity support a decision to keep the action in the Bankruptcy Court, defendants’ motion to withdraw the reference and their jury demand is denied.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a reference only when a question of non-bankruptcy federal law is essential or material to resolving the bankruptcy proceeding.

In Re U.S. Airways Group, Inc. · filed 2003-08-13(d)

In other words, an issue or question of non-bankruptcy federal law must be essential or material to the disposition of the bankruptcy proceeding before withdrawal of the reference is mandated.

Section 157(d) allows a district court to keep a non-core proceeding in bankruptcy court when the relevant factors favor retaining the reference.

Daewoo Motor America, Inc. v. Gulf Insurance (In Re Daewoo Motor America, Inc.) · filed 2003-09-26(d)

Nonetheless, given the bankruptcy court’s prior consideration of some of the issues in this matter and the lack of a jury demand, the factors support keeping this proceeding in the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause after considering factors such as core status, a jury demand, judicial economy, delay, forum shopping, and uniform bankruptcy administration.

Michaelesco v. Shefts · filed 2004-01-06(d)

Because 28 U.S.C. § 157 does not define the term “cause,” the Second Circuit requires district courts to examine a number of factors when determining whether to withdraw a matter from the bankruptcy court. Some of the relevant factors in a court’s determination of “cause” include: (1) whether the claim is core or non-core, (2) the presence of a jury demand, (3) uniform bankruptcy administration, (4) reduction of forum shopping, (5) delay and costs to the parties, (6) expediting the bankruptcy process, and (7) judicial economy.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when resolving the proceeding does not require significant interpretation of non-bankruptcy federal law.

Prudential Securities Credit Corp. v. Pacific Pointe Escrow, Inc. (In Re AppOnline.com, Inc.) · filed 2004-01-17(d)

Because the resolution of this case will not require “ ‘significant interpretation’ ” of non-bankruptcy federal laws, this action is not subject to mandatory withdrawal.

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

Schneider v. Riddick (In Re Formica Corp.) · filed 2004-02-05(d)

While the plaintiff has a right to a jury trial, such a right does not compel withdrawing the reference until the case is ready to proceed to trial.

Section 157(d) requires mandatory withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when the proceeding involves a substantial and material question of federal law outside the Bankruptcy Code.

Harris v. Washington Mutual Home Loans, Inc. (In Re Harris) · filed 2004-06-02(d)

The court finds that mandatory withdrawal does not apply because this proceeding does not involve a substantial and material question of non-Bankruptcy Code federal law.

Section 157(d) makes withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference discretionary in this situation.

John Richards Homes Building Co. v. STN.com (In re John Richards Homes Building Co.) · filed 2004-08-05(d)

Withdrawing the reference in this situation is permissive; that is, withdrawal is subject to this Court’s discretion.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal when resolving a bankruptcy proceeding requires substantial consideration of how nonbankruptcy federal statutes interact with the Bankruptcy Code.

In Re Cablevision S.A. · filed 2004-10-06(d)

The very existence of a dispute as to whether the rights of SHL under the TIA and Williams Act supersede Section 304 or whether the Bankruptcy Code overrides the TIA, regardless of the ultimate resolution of such dispute, mandates withdrawal.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference solely because a party demands a jury trial.

Enron Corp. v. Belo Co. (In Re Enron Corp.) · filed 2004-11-02(d)

Accordingly, it does not automatically follow from Belo’s jury demand that the reference must be withdrawn, at least at this time.

A motion to withdraw a bankruptcy reference under §157(d) invokes the district court’s original jurisdiction rather than its appellate jurisdiction.

Caldwell-Baker Co v. Parsons, Fred L. · filed 2004-12-16(d)

Section 158(d) does not apply, because a motion to withdraw the reference invokes the district judge’s original rather than appellate jurisdiction in bankruptcy; anyway, both §158(d) and §1291 limit appeals to district courts’ final decisions.

Section 157(d) requires a timely motion showing cause to withdraw the reference; failure to file one can waive a party’s jury-trial right.

Holcomb Health Care Services, LLC v. Quart Limited, LLC (In Re Holcomb Health Care Services, LLC) · filed 2004-12-30(d)

28 U.S.C. § 157 requires that a party file a “timely motion” for “cause shown” to withdraw the reference. ... The defendants’ failure to file a timely motion would result in waiver of their jury trial rights. So certainly, their failure to file any such motion at all, results in the same waiver.

Section 157(d) permits a district judge to withdraw a bankruptcy reference and conduct a jury trial, but creditors generally cannot demand that step.

AG Finan Service Inc v. Hughes, Barbara · filed 2005-01-19(d)

Bankruptcy courts may relinquish tort claims to state tribunals, see 28 U.S.C. §1334(c), or a district judge may withdraw a refer- ence and conduct a jury trial, see 28 U.S.C. §157(d), but with few exceptions (none applicable here) creditors of the estate do not have a right to either step—and neither the bankruptcy judge nor the district judge had the slightest inclination to empanel a jury to hear this claim as a matter of discretion, or to award punitive damages (a discretionary remedy altogether) in a bench trial.

Section 157(d) permits partial withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding's reference when judicial efficiency supplies cause.

Grant Thornton International v. Parmalat Finanziaria S.P.A. (In Re Parmalat Finanziaria S.P.A.) · filed 2005-01-26(d)

In this case, there is a higher interest, and that is an overriding consideration of judicial efficiency. ... The Court will withdraw the reference to allow it to consider the applicability of any Section 304 Order to parties to the Securities Fraud Action and the Recovery Actions.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when the proceeding requires resolution of no federal law other than Title 11.

Terry v. Sparrow · filed 2005-03-30(d)

There are simply no provisions of federal law that must be resolved as part of the bankruptcy proceedings, other than the bankruptcy statutes in Title 11. Therefore, the provisions of § 157(d) do not require mandatory withdrawal of this case from the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when the proceeding requires resolution of no nonbankruptcy federal law.

Terry v. Troxler · filed 2005-03-30(d)

There are simply no provisions of federal law that must be resolved as part of the Bankruptcy proceedings, other than the bankruptcy statutes in Title 11. Therefore, the provisions of § 157(d) do not require mandatory withdrawal of this case from the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(d) permits discretionary withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause; in these circumstances, a jury-trial demand supplied cause because the motion was made after the early stage of the proceedings.

Shubert v. Julius Kraft Co. (In re Winstar Communications, Inc.) · filed 2005-03-24(d)

In this case, the Court concludes that Defendants did not make the motion to withdraw at an early stage of the proceedings and, thus, a demand for a jury trial is sufficient cause for discretionary withdrawal in these circumstances.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when the proceeding raises no issue under federal law outside Title 11.

Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. Skinner Engine Co. (In Re American Capital Equipment, LLC) · filed 2005-05-02(d)

Withdrawal is mandatory only where the proceeding raises issues under both Title 11 and some other federal law. 28 U.S.C.A. § 157(d). Travelers’ adversary complaint raises no issues under any other federal laws. As such, withdrawal is not mandatory.

Section 157(d) requires substantial and material consideration of nonbankruptcy federal law for mandatory withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference.

Chao v. Holman (In Re Holman) · filed 2005-05-04(d)

Although the Eastern District of Michigan has rejected this test, since the majority of jurisdictions within this Circuit, and elsewhere, have adopted the substantial and material consideration test, this Court will also adopt the substantial and material consideration test. ... This case does not require the Court to undertake substantial and material consideration of non-bankruptcy issues. Thus, the Court declines to withdraw the Bankruptcy Court’s reference.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy court reference for cause; a proceeding’s core status weighs strongly against permissive withdrawal but is not dispositive.

Plan Administrator Ex Rel. Post-Consummation Estate of the Finance Co. Debtors v. Lone Star RV Sales, Inc. (In Re Consec · filed 2005-05-09(d)

As explained above, the fact that the Adversary Proceeding is a core proceeding cuts strongly against permissive withdrawal, at least at this juncture. Nonetheless, the fact that the claims alleged in the Adversary Proceeding are core is not dispositive of the withdrawal analysis.

Section 157(d) generally requires more than a jury demand to show cause for withdrawing a bankruptcy proceeding before it is ready for trial.

Growe Ex Rel. Great Northern Paper v. Bilodard · filed 2005-05-19(d)

Defendant has offered no justification for withdrawal beyond the fact that it has made a jury demand and does not consent to trial by the bankruptcy judge. As discussed above, such an assertion is generally insufficient to carry Defendant’s burden of demonstrating cause for withdrawal under § 157(d) unless the case is ready for trial.

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

In Re Ephedra Products Liability Litigation · filed 2005-08-08(d)

The RICO dispute made granting of the motion to withdraw the reference mandatory under the second sentence of § 157(d) because "resolution of the proceeding require[d] consideration of both title 11 and other laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce.”

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of the bankruptcy reference when resolving the proceeding requires substantial consideration of a nonbankruptcy federal statute regulating interstate commerce.

Duhamel v. Turner · filed 2005-11-22(d)

Plaintiffs motion is governed by the “mandatory withdrawal” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). ... Because Plaintiff has failed to identify any provision of the ECOA or regulations which may possibly prohibit the conduct of which she complains, the Court is not persuaded that consideration of the ECOA or regulations promulgated thereunder will be required for resolution of her claim.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause when the factors governing withdrawal favor it.

Mirant Corp. v. the Southern Co. · filed 2006-01-10(d)

In sum, the court concludes that the Holland America factors weigh in favor of withdrawal of the reference, and that the reference of the action pending in the bankruptcy court as Adversary No. 05-04099 should be withdrawn. For the reasons given in the foregoing parts of this memorandum opinion and order, the withdrawal is for cause shown, as contemplated by the first sentence of 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) does not require discretionary withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference solely because a party demands a jury trial and refuses to consent to trial in Bankruptcy Court.

American Classic Voyages Co. v. Westaff (USA), Inc. · filed 2006-02-07(d)

However, assertion of a Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, coupled with a refusal to consent to such trial before the Bankruptcy Court, is not of itself sufficient cause for discretionary withdrawal.

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

In Re: Velocita Corp · filed 2006-02-16(d)

Section 157(d) of Title 28 enables a District Court to withdraw the reference “for cause shown.”

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause, considering bankruptcy administration, forum shopping, efficient use of resources, and speed.

In Re: Velocita Corp · filed 2006-03-07(d)

Section 157(d) of Title 28 enables a District Court to withdraw the reference “for cause shown.” ... Relevant factors include “the goals of promoting uniformity in bankruptcy administration, reducing forum shopping and confusion, fostering the economical use of the debtors’ and creditors’ resources, and expediting the bankruptcy process.” ... Therefore, we hold that the District Court did not err in declining to withdraw the reference.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when resolving the proceeding requires substantial and material interpretation of a qualifying federal law outside Title 11.

Snodgrass v. New Century Mortgage Corp. · filed 2006-07-10(d)

Because an interpretation of these two non-Title 11 statutes will be necessary to a resolution of plaintiffs’ claims, HPCC has met the “substantial and material” standard required for mandatory withdrawal. The court GRANTS HPCC’s timely motion on that point.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal when the nonbankruptcy federal law issues are straightforward and do not dominate the proceeding.

Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Mesa Air Group, Inc. · filed 2006-07-31(d)

As set forth in HAL’s opposition memorandum, the antitrust and other federal law issues in this case appear to be straightforward and not matters of first impression. (Plaintiffs Opp. at 12-16.) Non-bankruptcy code issues do not dominate the case. ... As such, mandatory withdrawal is not required.

Section 157(d) allows a district court to withdraw the reference for an adversary proceeding while the bankruptcy court retains authority over the bankruptcy case.

Michaelesco v. Katz · filed 2006-12-21(d)

Finally, to the extent that Michaelesco challenges the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction to enter the order granting Katz leave to abandon the litigation, that claim fails because the district court withdrew the reference to the Bankruptcy Court only of adversary proceeding No. 01-5086, and the Bankruptcy Court retained jurisdiction to issue the order in bankruptcy case No. 01-50330.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of the reference for cause when a proceeding is non-core and a party has demanded a jury trial.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of the VWE Group, Inc. v. Amlicke (In Re VWE Group, Inc.) · filed 2007-01-05(d)

Under Orion, the court’s finding that the claim is non-core coupled with defendants’ jury demand is sufficient cause to withdraw the reference.

Section 157(d) requires a party seeking mandatory withdrawal to identify the nonbankruptcy federal law the bankruptcy court must apply.

Vieira v. AGM, II, LLC · filed 2007-01-22(d)

Vieira’s failure to indicate which non-bankruptcy federal laws the Bankruptcy Court will have to apply is fatal.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for good cause, which may include a material change in the circumstances that led a party to consent to bankruptcy court adjudication.

Veldekens v. GE HFS HOLDINGS, INC. · filed 2007-01-23(d)

Likewise, a party who consents to final adjudication by the Bankruptcy Court must file a motion to withdraw the reference. In either situation, the party must show “good cause.” ... In the present case, “good cause” includes a material change in the circumstances that led the party to consent in the first instance.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause when a party entitled to a jury trial refuses trial before a bankruptcy judge.

Container Recycling Alliance v. Lassman · filed 2007-02-06(d)

The existence of the right to a jury trial and CRA’s refusal to have that trial conducted by a bankruptcy judge combine to provide cause for allowing the motion to withdraw the reference, and the motion is therefore GRANTED.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause when the bankruptcy court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

Wolinsky v. Oak Tree Imaging, LP · filed 2007-02-09(d)

In this case, because the bankruptcy court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the suit, that court properly requested a withdrawal by the district court on its own motion because a lack of jurisdiction is certainly "cause” for a withdrawal under § 157(d).

Section 157(d) allows a district court to withdraw a referred bankruptcy proceeding for cause and requires withdrawal when resolving it requires consideration of title 11 and other federal laws regulating interstate commerce.

In re Best Payphones, Inc. · filed 2007-05-21(d)

Mandatory withdrawal under § 157(d) is narrowly applied, and is appropriate only when “substantial and material potential conflicts exist between non-bankruptcy federal laws and Title 11.” ... Accordingly, mandatory withdrawal pursuant to § 157(d) is not compelled.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy court reference when resolving the proceeding calls only for simple application of another federal statute.

Oneida Ltd. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. · filed 2007-07-18(d)

Because the Bankruptcy Court’s inquiry requires a “simple application” rather than a “significant interpretation” of the ERISA Amendment, mandatory withdrawal is not warranted.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause when doing so uses judicial resources efficiently and reduces delay and costs.

Vacation Village Inc. v. Clark County, Nevada · filed 2007-07-23(d)

Thus, although there may have been some abrogation of the County’s right to an intermediate appeal from the bank- ruptcy court’s decision based on the precise timing of Judge Jones’s withdrawal of the reference, see, e.g., In re Pruitt, 910 F.2d 1160, 1168 (9th Cir. 2002), we find that an examination of all the factors identified in In re Cantor, 299 F.3d at 1154, indicates that Judge Jones properly withdrew the reference for cause.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference on its own motion for cause, including efficient use of judicial resources and reduced delay and costs.

Vacation Village, Inc. v. Clark County, Nev · filed 2007-08-10(d)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), “[t]he district court may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding referred under this section, on its own motion ... for cause shown.” ... We find that Judge Jones efficiently used judicial resources and minimized further delay and costs to the parties by entering final judgment at the conclusion of protracted litigation.