28 U.S.C. § 157

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause when jury trial demands and judicial economy favor trying related claims together in district court.

Grochocinski v. LaSalle Bank National Ass'n (In Re K & R Express Systems, Inc.) · filed 2007-08-23(d)

We hold that regardless of the status of LaSalle’s right to a jury trial or the nature of the Trustee’s claims against it, all of the Trustee’s claims in this adversary proceeding should be tried together in one forum, Since, for Midwest and Rogulic, that forum necessarily would be this court, we withdraw the reference as to the Trustee’s claims against Midwest and Rogulic, as well as the Trustee’s claims against La-Salle, out of convenience for the courts and the parties, and for reasons hereinbefore stated.

Section 157(d) permits only the district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference, so a local rule cannot authorize a bankruptcy judge to do so.

Sigma Micro Corp. v. Healthcentral.com (In Re Healthcentral.com) · filed 2007-09-21(d)

First, Local Rule 9015-2(b) allows for the bankruptcy court to “withdraw!]” the jurisdictional reference, whereas 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) and Rule 5011(a) make it explicit that only a district court may “withdraw” the jurisdictional reference.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of the bankruptcy reference for cause when proceedings are noncore, the parties retain jury trial rights, and withdrawal is timely.

In Re Oca, Inc. · filed 2007-11-05(d)

Although the Court concludes that these proceedings are non-core and that the doctors retain the right to jury trials, it will briefly address the other Holland America factors and the issue of timeliness. ... Therefore, the Court finds that these doctors timely filed their motions in light of the case management decisions by this Court and the bankruptcy court. ... For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the doctors’ motions to withdraw the reference.

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

In Re Dana Corp. · filed 2007-11-20(d)

Because of this and because the bankruptcy court, in addressing these issues, will be forced to confront the conflict between the underlying goals of CERCLA and those of the Bankruptcy Code, I am withdrawing the reference to the bankruptcy court of all proceedings related to the Government’s claims, including but not limited to the Claim Objection and the Estimation Motion. Withdrawal of the reference is mandatory because substantial and material consideration of CERCLA is required for the resolution of those proceedings.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause when non-core claims are ready for a jury trial.

901 L.L.C. v. Skyline Concrete Floor Corp. · filed 2008-01-08(d)

Having considered the relevant factors and in light of the fact that this case is ready for a jury trial, the Court concludes that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) withdrawal of the reference to the Bankruptcy Court with respect to the claims in this adversary proceeding is appropriate under the circumstances.

Section 157(d) allows a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference in whole or in part for cause, on its own motion or a timely party motion.

Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles · filed 2008-02-27(d)

Both 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) and Fed. R. Bankr.P. 5011(a) provide that only the district court may determine a motion to withdraw the reference. 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) provides, in 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.” ... Withdrawal of this non-core proceeding is appropriate.

Section 157(d) places the burden on a party seeking permissive withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference to show cause; evenly balanced factors warrant denial.

Grcker v. Marathon Financial Ins. Co. Inc., Rrg · filed 2008-07-22(d)

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court concludes that the pertinent factors under the “for cause shown” test cut both ways in roughly equal proportions. Logic and precedent dictate that such a determination should lead to denial of Marathon’s motion, given the presumption against permissive withdrawal and the burden on Marathon to overcome that presumption.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to deny withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference during pretrial proceedings and allow renewal when the case is ready for trial.

Springel v. Prosser · filed 2008-08-21(d)

The Court finds that several considerations disfavor withdrawal of the reference at this early stage of the adversarial proceeding. ... For the foregoing reasons, the motions of Dawn Prosser to withdraw the reference to the Bankruptcy Division of the Palm Beach Action and the Fraudulent Conveyance Action will be denied without prejudice. Dawn Prosser may renew her motion with respect to the Palm Beach Action or the Fraudulent Conveyance Action if and when the Bankruptcy Division certifies such action as trial-ready.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference merely because another federal law may be implicated.

Anderson v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (In Re Anderson) · filed 2008-09-22(d)

The mere fact that HOLA and/or RESPA may be “implicated” (Countrywide’s word) does not suffice to require withdrawal of the reference.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for a jury trial and defer withdrawal until the bankruptcy court rules on dispositive motions.

Levine v. M & a Custom Home Builder & Developer, LLC · filed 2008-11-25(d)

The standard for when a district court may withdraw the reference from a bankruptcy court is outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). ... In the present case, the bankruptcy court carefully analyzed the relevant factors and concluded that because defendant Medina had demanded a jury trial, had not waived his right to a jury trial, and had not consented to a jury trial held in the bankruptcy court, withdrawal was appropriate. The bankruptcy court recognized that the withdrawal should be deferred until that court has ruled on all dispositive motions, to further judicial economy and expedite the bankruptcy process. ... This court adopts the report and recommendation and withdraws the reference effective when the bankruptcy court rules on the dispositive motions and subject to the bankruptcy court’s rulings on those motions.

Section 157(d) allows only a party to a proceeding to move to withdraw its reference.

Springel v. Prosser · filed 2008-12-04(d)

As a non-party, however, Dawn Prosser does not have standing to file a motion to withdraw the reference in that particular proceeding.

A party’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial supplies cause to withdraw the bankruptcy reference under Section 157(d).

Springel v. Prosser · filed 2008-12-05(d)

They first assert that Prosser has failed to demonstrate “cause” under Section 157(d). That assertion is without merit. “ ‘Cause’ to withdraw the reference automatically exists in cases where the party seeking the withdrawal is entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.”

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

Latin American Roller Co. v. Cooperativa De Seguros Multiples De Puerto Rico · filed 2009-01-29(d)

The claims for relief in the amended complaint are non core ‘related’ matters which may be heard by this court but may not be finally resolved by a bankruptcy judge. Therefore, cause exists under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) for the withdrawal of reference of these claims.

Section 157(d) requires a party seeking discretionary withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference to demonstrate cause.

Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc. v. Brooks (In Re Jackson Brook Institute, Inc.) · filed 2009-02-25(d)

On a motion for discretionary withdrawal of the reference, pursuant to § 157(d), the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating cause.

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

Murray v. Holiday Isle, LLC · filed 2009-03-25(d)

To allay any lingering doubts, the Court hereby withdraws the reference of this matter to the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause when a party has a right to a jury trial and does not consent to trial before the bankruptcy judge.

Riley v. Wolverine, Proctor & Schwartz, Ltd. · filed 2009-04-17(d)

Cause to withdraw a reference exists where a party has a right to a trial by jury and does not consent to having that trial in the bankruptcy court.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to leave pretrial matters with the bankruptcy court when a party’s asserted jury-trial right does not yet justify withdrawing the reference.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Neumann Homes, Inc. v. Neumann (In Re Neumann Homes, Inc.) · filed 2009-04-27(d)

In the interests of judicial economy and efficient administration of the bankruptcy estate, the bankruptcy court is better suited to manage all pretrial matters and related issues arising out of the estate. Should a jury trial become necessary to resolve the issues articulated in the adversary proceeding, then we can consider whether to withdraw the reference at that time. At this stage in the litigation, the Neumanns’ contention that it is entitled to a jury trial is insufficient to support withdrawal of the reference.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to keep a proceeding in bankruptcy court while bankruptcy issues remain unresolved and withdraw the reference later if a jury trial becomes necessary.

Dwyer v. First National Bank (In Re O'Brien) · filed 2009-05-19(d)

Permitting the bankruptcy court to resolve the outstanding bankruptcy law questions in this proceeding promotes the uniformity of bankruptcy law. ... Lastly, declining to withdraw the reference at this time preserves the right to a jury trial because the reference may be withdrawn if and when a jury trial becomes necessary. Accordingly, the motion for withdrawal of reference to the bankruptcy court [Docket 1 in 5:08-mc-58] is DENIED.

Section 157(d) permits discretionary withdrawal of the bankruptcy reference for cause.

In Re Peanut Corp. of America · filed 2009-06-08(d)

In light of all these factors, Parnell has met his burden of setting forth sufficient "cause" for discretionary withdrawal.

Section 157(d) permits discretionary withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding for cause when district court review would duplicate work and withdrawal would preserve a jury-trial right.

Federal Insurance v. Parnell · filed 2009-06-08(d)

While withdrawal of reference is mandatory when “resolution of the proceeding requires consideration of both title 11 and other laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce,” discretionary withdrawal may be ordered “for cause shown.” ... In light of all these factors, Parnell has met his burden of setting forth sufficient “cause” for discretionary withdrawal.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal after a proceeding has been referred to bankruptcy court; a party seeking referral need not first show that withdrawal would be futile.

Omega Tool Corp. v. Alix Partners, LLP · filed 2009-06-25(d)

A plain reading of that statutory language indicates that withdrawal motions are considered after proceedings have been referred to the Bankruptcy Court; not before. There is nothing in § 157 that supports a requirement that a party seeking a referral of a matter to the Bankruptcy Court must first prove that its request would not be futile.

Section 157(d) requires the party seeking permissive withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference to establish a sound articulated foundation for withdrawal.

Morrison v. Amway Corp. (In Re Morrison) · filed 2009-07-01(d)

This Court agrees with Judge Isgur’s analysis and conclusions regarding the § 157(d) factors for permissive withdrawal of the reference. Defendants have failed to satisfy their burden to establish a “sound articulated foundation” for permissive withdrawal of the reference.

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

United States v. Delfasco, Inc. · filed 2009-07-15(d)

Reviewing the Complaint in light of the standard for mandatory withdrawal, the Court concludes that the present action must be withdrawn from the Bankruptcy Court because it involves a substantial and material consideration of environmental law, particularly with respect to Counts II and III.

Section 157(d) mandates withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when resolving the proceeding is likely to require substantial and material consideration of a federal law regulating activities affecting interstate commerce.

Lubin v. Cincinnati Insurance · filed 2009-07-21(d)

In light of the position taken by the FDIC, the Court finds that substantial and material consideration of FIRREA is likely to be required in this case. Therefore, the Court finds that mandatory withdrawal of the reference is appropriate.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding when resolving the remaining claims does not require consideration of other federal law.

Lewis v. Negri Bossi USA, Inc. (In Re Mathson Industries, Inc.) · filed 2009-07-27(d)

Even if the existence of a Sherman Act violation would help Plaintiff prove her claim, the resolution of this proceeding simply does not require consideration of the Sherman Act. Therefore, withdrawal of the reference to the bankruptcy court is not mandatory in this case.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause; the bankruptcy court’s familiarity with the case and readiness for trial can weigh against withdrawal.

Maxwell v. Kemp (In Re Beale) · filed 2009-08-07(d)

The Bankruptcy Court had set a trial date for this matter. The Bankruptcy Court is prepared to proceed, and is familiar with the case. These factors disfavor withdrawing the reference, as does the more general preference to have the Bankruptcy Court resolve all claims related to the debtor’s assets.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding merely because a claim involves nonbankruptcy federal law; the law must require substantial interpretation.

Murphy v. County of Chemung · filed 2009-08-18(d)

Thus, while withdrawal is generally mandatory if resolution of a case requires “significant interpretation, as opposed to simple application, of federal laws apart from the bankruptcy statutes,” a district court may decline withdrawal where the case does not demand “substantial and material” consideration of non-bankruptcy federal statutes. ... Given the broad interpretation of what constitutes a core proceeding, the plaintiffs straightforward assertion of a claim pursuant to Bankruptcy statutes, and the lack of need to extensively consider or interpret federal law in addressing his non-bankruptcy claim, I find that the parties’ adversary proceeding is a “core” proceeding.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference in the interests of judicial economy and to avoid repetitive appeals and piecemeal litigation.

In Re Congoleum Corp. · filed 2009-10-02(d)

Therefore, the Court now withdraws the reference pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) and will assume authority over the remaining proceedings in the Debtors’ case. The Court takes this action in the interests of judicial economy and to avoid potential repetitive appeals and piecemeal litigation.

A motion to withdraw the bankruptcy court reference under § 157(d) becomes moot when the bankruptcy court dismisses the adversary proceeding.

Chamberlain Group, Corp. v. Lear Corp. (In Re Lear Corp.) · filed 2009-10-14(d)

However, a bankruptcy court order dismissing an adversary proceeding moots a motion to withdraw reference pursuant to § 157(d).

Section 157 permits a district court that has partially withdrawn the bankruptcy reference to hear both core and non-core related proceedings.

In Re G-1 Holdings Inc. · filed 2009-11-12

Because the District Court has joined in presiding over this confirmation proceeding and partially withdrawn the reference, both core and non-core related proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 157 are properly before this Court.

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

Rodriguez v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. · filed 2009-12-03(d)

The Court therefore will apply the “substantial and material” standard to Countrywide’s request for mandatory withdrawal.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a referred attorney fee motion when judicial economy justifies withdrawal.

Ormsby v. First American Title Co. · filed 2010-01-08(d)

The District Court determined that judicial economy justified the withdrawal. ... The District Court’s withdrawal of the motion and subsequent decision on attorney’s fees was not improper.

Section 157(d) allows a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause, including by declining to refer a proceeding in the first instance.

Fitch v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2010-01-21(d)

Second, the Court’s authority to withdraw a bankruptcy reference necessarily includes the authority not to refer proceedings in the first instance.

Section 157(d) gives the district court, rather than the bankruptcy court, the power to withdraw a case from the bankruptcy court.

In Re Emanuel · filed 2010-01-29(d)

This Court does not have the authority to transfer a case to the District Court; only the District Court, through its power to withdraw the reference, can transfer a case to itself from the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of the reference for particular adversary proceedings without withdrawing the reference of the bankruptcy case.

In Re Eurospark Industries, Inc. · filed 2010-03-03(d)

A district court may “withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding referred” to the bankruptcy court. 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). Here, the District Court withdrew only the reference of the Adversary Proceedings: ... The reference of the bankruptcy case was not withdrawn; accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction to hear any motions made in the bankruptcy case, including the UST’s motion to appoint a chapter 11 trustee.

When a dischargeability matter has been referred to bankruptcy court, § 157(d) requires withdrawal of that reference before it can be raised in the district court action.

Dimichele v. Nassbridges (In Re Nassbridges) · filed 2010-08-17(d)

The issue of the dischargeability of Defendant’s debt to Plaintiffs could not have been raised in the District Court Action unless there had been a withdrawal of the reference under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause when judicial efficiency favors hearing related claims together.

Lomax v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2010-08-18(d)

Cause exists in this case to withdraw the Order of Reference because judicial efficiency requires that this Court retain Counts IV and V (Bankruptcy Code) so as not to separate those counts from Count III (FDCPA), which this Court ordered above may proceed.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal when the district court resolves the only issue requiring substantial consideration of nonbankruptcy law; the court may also decline discretionary withdrawal when the bankruptcy court is the more efficient forum.

BankUnited Financial Corp. v. Federal Deposit Insurance · filed 2010-08-20(d)

Accordingly, withdrawal is not mandatory. Nor is permissive withdrawal appropriate. Armed with the Court’s ruling on the single issue that would otherwise merit mandatory withdrawal, the Bankruptcy Court — -which has presided over the Chapter 11 cases since their inception — is at this juncture the most efficient and appropriate forum in which to resolve the Parties’ claims.

Section 157(d) requires cause shown for discretionary withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference.

RECAP Investments XI-Fund A, L.P. v. McCullough Harris LLC · filed 2011-01-05(d)

However, a district court may withdraw the reference to the bankruptcy court for “cause shown.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). ... The Court is not persuaded that cause exists to withdraw the reference in these circumstances.

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

United States v. Demiro · filed 2011-02-23(d)

Thus, the proceedings are subject to mandatory withdrawal under § 157(d).

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when the movant identifies no novel issue of federal non-bankruptcy law likely to arise.

Green v. Federal Deposit Insurance (In Re Tamalpais Bancorp) · filed 2011-03-21(d)

Because FDIC has failed to identify any novel issues of federal non-bankruptcy law that are likely to arise in the adversary proceeding, the Court concludes that mandatory withdrawal is not appropriate in this case.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of the bankruptcy reference when resolving threshold issues requires substantial and material interpretation of non-bankruptcy federal law.

Picard v. HSBC BANK PLC · filed 2011-04-25(d)

Turning first to mandatory withdrawal, the Court concludes that two threshold issues in this case will, in fact, require substantial and material interpretation of non-bankruptcy federal law and that the Court is thus required to withdraw the reference to address these two issues.

Section 157(d) mandates withdrawal of the reference when resolving a proceeding requires substantial interpretation of federal law outside the Bankruptcy Code.

Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC · filed 2011-05-23(d)

Accordingly, because the Trustee’s common-law claims are on behalf of BMIS customers, and not the BMIS estate, determining whether the Trustee’s action is preempted by SLUSA requires substantial interpretation of federal non-bankruptcy law. Withdrawal of the reference is therefore mandated under Section 157(d).

Section 157(d) permits a district court to defer discretionary withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference while the bankruptcy court handles discovery and summary judgment, even if a jury trial may later be needed.

Tyler v. McLane Foodservice, Inc. (In Re QSM, LLC) · filed 2011-05-26(d)

In sum, although withdrawal of the reference may well be appropriate if this matter proceeds to a jury trial, judicial economy and the uniform administration of bankruptcy proceedings point persuasively in favor of denying discretionary withdrawal of the reference at this time. Furthermore, allowing the bankruptcy court to oversee discovery and adjudicate summary judgment motions in the first instance does not in any way infringe on defendant’s right to a jury trial in the district court.

Section 157 permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference, but a withdrawal does not encompass a dischargeability action filed later in a re-referred bankruptcy case.

Prudential Mortgage Capital Co., L.L.C. v. Faidi · filed 2011-06-24(d)

Furthermore, “[t]he district court may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding referred” to the bankruptcy court “on its own motion or on timely motion of any party, for cause shown.” Id. § 157(d). ... The dischargeability action was filed in the bankruptcy case after it was re-referred. Therefore, the dischargeability action was not in the district court when it withdrew the reference, and it was never part of the civil case that was tried before the district court.

A district court’s withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference does not reach a dischargeability action filed after the bankruptcy case was re-referred.

Faidi v. Prudential Mortgage Capital Co, et · filed 2011-06-24(d)

The dischargeability action was filed in the bankruptcy case after it was re-referred. Therefore, the dischargeability action was not in the district court when it withdrew the reference, and it was never part of the civil case that was tried before the district court.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of the bankruptcy reference when adjudicating the dispute requires consideration of federal law regulating interstate commerce.

United Systems Access Telecom, Inc. v. Northern New England Telephone Operations, LLC · filed 2011-08-05(d)

It is true that some authority in this area is delegated to state public utilities commissions, and that parties can enter into consensual agreements, but it is all within the context of overall federal regulation, and I agree with the plaintiffidebtor that adjudication of the dispute will require “consideration” of federal telecommunications law. Withdrawal, therefore, is mandatory.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of an entire adversary proceeding, including core and non-core claims against nonmoving defendants, when judicial efficiency favors hearing it in district court.

Adler v. Walker (In Re Gulf States Long Term Acute Care of Covington, L.L.C.) · filed 2011-08-25(d)

The core claims do not appear to predominate; the non-core claims are clearly significant theories of recovery pertaining to the alleged fraudulent scheme to deprive the Debtor of its assets. It is in the interest of judicial efficiency for the entire underlying case to be heard in district court: this avoids the need for de novo review of the bankruptcy court’s findings and conclusions on the non-core claims. Therefore, the Court holds that the motion to withdraw the reference should be granted as to all the claims presented in the underlying proceeding, as to all defendants.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to deny discretionary withdrawal when efficiency, uniformity and judicial economy favor keeping adversary proceedings in bankruptcy court through pretrial proceedings.

Kelley ex rel. Petters Co. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. · filed 2011-09-21(d)

This Court sees no basis, much less need, to disrupt the carefully-crafted procedures already in place by granting withdrawal of the JPMC Adversary Proceedings. Efficiency, uniformity and judicial economy all clearly weigh in favor of the bankruptcy court retaining these adversary proceedings through pretrial procedures.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to deny permissive withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when the relevant considerations weigh against withdrawal, despite possible delay.

Walker, Truesdell, Roth & Associates ex rel. Extended Stay Litigation Trust v. Blackstone Group, L.P. (In re Extended St · filed 2011-11-10(d)

Although issues raised by Stem might slow the adversary proceedings somewhat, this concern does not justify permissive withdrawal in light of all the other considerations weighing against withdrawal.

Section 157(d) requires mandatory withdrawal when its conditions are met even if defendants have submitted proofs of claim.

Picard v. Flinn Investments, LLC · filed 2011-11-28(d)

Thus, this Court follows others in holding that mandatory withdrawal must be made even where defendants have submitted proofs of claims.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy proceeding for cause, considering whether it is core and whether withdrawal promotes judicial efficiency.

Dewitt Rehabilitation & Nursing Center, Inc. v. Columbia Casualty Co. · filed 2012-01-25(d)

Defendants have shown “cause” for withdrawing the reference to the Bankruptcy Court. 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). Consequently, their motions for withdrawal (ECF docket nos. [1], [11], [17]) are GRANTED.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause; avoiding delay and further cost can support withdrawal.

Gecker v. Flynn (In re Emerald Casino, Inc.) · filed 2012-01-31(d)

The Bankruptcy Code permits this court to withdraw a case from the bankruptcy court “on its own motion or on timely motion of any party, for cause shown.” ... Yet withdrawal of the reference, even at this late stage, could nevertheless eliminate delay and further cost. ... On balance, the court concludes that this case presents the unusual circumstance in which withdrawal of the reference is appropriate.

Section 157(d) calls for bankruptcy courts to leave proceedings requiring substantial consideration of nonbankruptcy law to a better equipped forum.

In Re Qa3 Financial Corp. · filed 2012-01-18(d)

Moreover, bankruptcy courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and when resolution of a proceeding requires ... material consideration of laws outside of the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Court should stand aside in favor of a forum better equipped to address those matters.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for an issue that needs only simple application of existing precedent.

Picard v. Avellino · filed 2012-02-29(d)

In the absence of such reasons, the Court concludes that resolution of this issue will require no more than simple application of existing precedent and thus does not warrant withdrawal.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a referred bankruptcy proceeding for cause and requires withdrawal when resolution requires consideration of Title 11 and specified federal laws.

Weisfelner v. Blavatnik (In Re Lyondell Chemical Co.) · filed 2012-03-29(d)

Section 157(d) does not define “cause.” Prior to Stern, however, the Second Circuit had identified a number of factors relevant to a determination of “cause” (the “Orion factors”), including “whether the claim or proceeding is core or non-core, whether it is legal or equitable, and considerations of efficiency, prevention of forum shopping, and uniformity in the administration of bankruptcy law.”

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a referred bankruptcy case or proceeding for cause and requires withdrawal when the proceeding requires consideration of title 11 and specified federal laws.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Appalachian Fuels, LLC v. Energy Coal Resources, Inc. (In re Appalachian Fu · filed 2012-04-18(d)

Thus, the Court may grant discretionary withdrawal of the reference if the motion was “timely,” and the movants have shown “cause.”

Section 157(d) governs withdrawing a bankruptcy proceeding’s reference to the district court.

Demetrious Smith v. Bluegrass Mortgage Services, Inc. · filed 2012-04-25(d)

A district court’s order granting or denying a motion to withdraw a reference under § 157(d) is not a final appealable order.

Section 157(d) allows a district court to deny withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference after considering whether the claims are core and other relevant factors.

Murphy v. County of Chemung (In Re Murphy) · filed 2012-05-18(d)

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Murphy’s motion to withdraw the reference. All three of Murphy’s claims arise from alleged violations of the automatic stay provision. See 11 U.S.C. § 362. The district court properly considered all relevant factors in determining whether such an action is core to the bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 157 does not authorize a bankruptcy court to transfer a referred case to the district court on its own; a motion to withdraw the reference is required.

De Jesus-Gonzalez v. Segarra-Miranda · filed 2012-05-25

The bankruptcy court does not have the power to transfer cases. A withdrawal of reference allows the district court to ensure only those cases requiring adjudication in the district court are transferred. Allowing the bankruptcy court to transfer cases to the district court sua sponte would run contrary to the statutory powers given to the bankruptcy court by Congress.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when resolving the proceeding requires material consideration of nonbankruptcy federal law; allegations involving laws the bankruptcy court need not address do not suffice.

In re Ellipso, Inc. · filed 2012-06-25(d)

The movants having failed to identify any non-bankruptcy issues that the Bankruptcy Court will be forced to determine in the future have not carried their burden to establish that withdrawal is mandatory.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to retain a referred proceeding when the withdrawal factors favor letting the bankruptcy court prepare findings and recommendations.

Messer v. Bentley Manhattan Inc. (In re Madison Bentley Associates, LLC) · filed 2012-06-26(d)

The balance of the Orion factors also warrants retention of the case by the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to keep a proceeding in bankruptcy court for pretrial work when efficiency favors doing so, even if the bankruptcy court cannot enter final judgment.

Penson Financial Services, Inc. v. O'Connell (In re Arbco Capital Management, LLP) · filed 2012-07-12(d)

This Court agrees that judicial efficiency favors keeping this proceeding in Bankruptcy Court for pretrial purposes. ... Even though the Bankruptcy Court lacks such final authority, the Court finds that uniformity in the administration of the bankruptcy law still favors allowing the Bankruptcy Court the opportunity to consider and evaluate these claims in the first instance. ... For the foregoing reasons, the motion to withdraw the reference is DENIED without prejudice to any renewed motions to withdraw when the case is ready for trial.

Section 157(d) does not require permissive withdrawal of a fraudulent conveyance proceeding merely because a party may demand a jury trial; the bankruptcy court may handle pretrial matters through summary judgment.

Rosenberg v. Bookstein · filed 2012-09-21(d)

While a jury trial must be conducted by this Court on the fraudulent transfer claims, all pre-trial proceedings up to and through summary judgment motions may be delegated to the bankruptcy court. ... For these reasons, the Court holds that permissive withdrawal is not required at this stage of the litigation.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to deny withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when withdrawal would not promote judicial economy.

Archdiocese of Milwaukee v. Does (In re Archdiocese of Milwaukee) · filed 2012-10-29(d)

Given that the Court does not have jurisdiction over any of those appeals, withdrawal of the reference would not promote judicial economy.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause, considering efficiency, uniform bankruptcy administration, forum shopping, confusion, and facilitation of the bankruptcy process.

Wi-Sky Inflight, Inc. v. Leabman (In re Wi-Sky Inflight, Inc.) · filed 2012-10-30(d)

After weighing the factors the Eleventh Circuit has identified as relevant to the Section 157(d) permissive withdrawal inquiry, the Court finds that the Creditors have failed to show that the Court should immediately withdraw the reference. Because leaving the reference with the Bankruptcy Court supports the most efficient use of the parties’ resources, the uniform administration of the bankruptcy process, and the facilitation of the bankruptcy process, and will best discourage forum shopping and reduce confusion, the Court declines to withdraw the reference.

Section 157(d)'s cause inquiry for withdrawing a bankruptcy reference includes whether the bankruptcy court has constitutional authority to enter a final decision.

Dynegy Danskammer, L.L.C. v. Peabody Coaltrade International Ltd. · filed 2012-11-07(d)

After considering these approaches, this Court concludes that the first of the Orion factors, originally the statutory core/non-core distinction, should include the question of whether the bankruptcy court has constitutional authority to enter a final decision under Stem.

Section 157(d) allows withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause; judicial economy and uniform bankruptcy administration weigh against withdrawing a routine core stay proceeding.

Martinez v. Scotiabank De Puerto Rico · filed 2012-11-16(d)

In this case, nearly all of the above factors point decisively against withdrawal. The matter that Appellant argues should be withdrawn—an attempted modification of the bankruptcy court’s automatic stay, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362—is without question a “core proceeding” under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(g). Withdrawing reference on such a routine and “core proceeding” of the bankruptcy court would inject needless delay, uncertainty and redundancy into the administration of bankruptcy litigation in this district. Denying Appellant’s motion for withdrawal will promote judicial economy, uniformity, efficiency, and will discourage forum shopping.

Section 157(d) treats a CFTC regulation enacted under the Commodity Exchange Act as an “other law” for mandatory withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference.

Koch Supply & Trading, LP v. Giddens · filed 2012-12-10(d)

For these reasons, it is clear that Regulation 190.08(a)(l)(i)(E) is a non-bankruptcy federal regulation enacted pursuant to title 7, and therefore constitutes an “other law” for purposes of § 157(d).

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

Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC · filed 2013-02-06(d)

The Court finds that the withdrawal of the reference is mandatory because the resolution of the Trustee’s Stay Application will require substantial and material consideration of federal law outside of the Bankruptcy Code, including SIPA.

Section 157 permits a district court to deny withdrawal of the bankruptcy reference despite non-core claims when judicial efficiency favors keeping the proceeding before the bankruptcy judge.

DeGiacomo v. Raymond C. Green, Inc. (Inofin, Inc.) · filed 2013-02-06(d)

RCG also requests that the Court withdraw the reference on the grounds that Counts III and IV involve non-core proceedings. Although this Court acknowledges that if RCG objects to the Bankruptcy Judge’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and appeals her ruling, this Court will be compelled to conduct de novo review, it nevertheless declines to withdraw the reference. ... As a result, the Court concludes that, in the interest of judicial efficiency, the motion to withdraw the adversary proceeding should be denied.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause shown; the court may deny withdrawal when keeping a core proceeding in bankruptcy court favors uniform administration and efficient resolution.

Scotiabank de Puerto Rico v. Perimetro Properties, Inc. (In re Plaza Resort at Palmas, Inc.) · filed 2013-03-05(d)

Permissive withdrawal of the reference is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), and may occur only “for cause shown.” ... Uniformity in bankruptcy administration weighs in favor of denying the withdrawal of the reference because the bankruptcy court is much more familiar with the process of determining lienholder priority. ... Accordingly, the Court DENIES the withdrawal of reference from the Bankruptcy Court.

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

Silverman v. Tudor Insurance (In re Lenders Abstract & Settlement Service Inc.) · filed 2013-04-12(d)

In this case, the Adversary Proceeding at issue is not subject to mandatory withdrawal because its resolution will clearly not hinge on “substantial and material consideration of non-Bankruptcy Code federal statutes.” In re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc., 922 F.2d 984, 995 (2d Cir.1990).

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when resolving the proceeding appears likely to require substantial and material consideration of nonbankruptcy federal law.

Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (In re Madoff Securities) · filed 2013-05-07(d)

Because, at the time it granted the motion to withdraw, it appeared likely that the Court would be required to engage in substantial and material consideration of the definition of “property of the estate” under SIPA in order to determine whether the NYAG’s and Receiver’s actions were subject to the automatic stay, the Court found that mandatory withdrawal of the reference on this issue was appropriate.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding merely because resolving it involves applying established copyright law.

In re Global Aviation Holdings Inc. · filed 2013-07-26(d)

Obviously the dispute cannot be resolved without analyzing copyright law. But the degree of interpretation required does not approach the “significant and material consideration” that triggers mandatory withdrawal under Second Circuit precedent.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to deny withdrawal of the reference when the bankruptcy court can resolve core claims and the other factors do not warrant withdrawal.

Mason v. Ivey · filed 2013-08-23(d)

In short, none of Defendants’ arguments for withdrawal is persuasive. Because Defendants have filed proofs of claim, the Trustee’s fraudulent conveyance claims are constitutionally core and the Bankruptcy Court may resolve them. Defendants have not identified any other basis that warrants withdrawal. The court, therefore, will deny Defendants’ motions to withdraw the reference.

Section 157(d) gives a district court discretion to deny withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when judicial efficiency favors keeping the proceeding before the bankruptcy judge.

Weiss v. Lockwood · filed 2013-09-04(d)

This Court concludes that, in the interest of judicial efficiency, the motion to withdraw the adversary proceeding should be denied. As was noted during the July, 2013 hearing, Bankruptcy Judge Henry Boroff already has familiarity with the debtor and his assets through related proceedings.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of the reference merely because a proceeding raises constitutional issues; the Constitution is not a law regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce.

In re City of Detroit · filed 2013-09-26(d)

Although the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, Art. 1, § 8, cl. 3, gives Congress the power to enact laws “to regulate Commerce ... among the several States,” the Constitution itself is simply not a law “regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce,” as required for mandatory withdrawal of the reference under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) does not require immediate withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when a party has a right to a jury trial; withdrawal may wait until the claims are ready for trial.

Loveridge v. Hall (In re Renewable Energy Development Corp.) · filed 2013-09-23(d)

The court agrees that the Defendants may insist on a jury trial for some of their claims, but finds that there is no reason to withdraw the bankruptcy reference until these claims are ready for trial.

Section 157(d) requires a party seeking permissive withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference to show cause.

Albert v. Site Management, Inc. · filed 2014-02-28(d)

It is the movant’s burden to show cause for the permissive withdrawal of reference to bankruptcy court. ... In sum, Defendants have not met their burden of demonstrating that withdrawing the reference is proper and their motion will be denied.

Section 157(d) allows a district court to deny withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when efficiency favors leaving the proceeding in bankruptcy court.

Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc. v. Intel Corp. · filed 2014-05-10(d)

The considerations of efficiency weigh against granting Intel’s motion to withdraw the reference at this time. The motion is therefore denied.

Section 157(d) requires the party seeking withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference to show cause; the bankruptcy court’s prior and ongoing involvement can weigh against withdrawal.

Northeast Industrial Development Corp. v. ParkStone Capital Partners, LLC (In re Northeast Industrial Development Corp.) · filed 2014-05-28(d)

Rippa has not met the burden to withdraw given the complexity of the bankruptcy, the litigation in this pending adversary proceeding that has already occurred in the Bankruptcy Court, and the Bankruptcy Court’s ongoing experience.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to leave a bankruptcy reference in place when a jury has been requested but the need for a jury trial remains uncertain.

Post Confirmation Board of Wadleigh Energy Group, Inc. v. Wadleigh · filed 2014-06-27(d)

The litigation has barely moved past the pleading stage, and the Court is unable to determine with any reasonable certainty at this early stage of the litigation whether a jury trial must be conducted. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw the reference will not be granted solely on the ground that a jury has been requested.

Section 157(d) permits mandatory withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when deciding the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction requires substantial and material consideration of nonbankruptcy federal law.

Ames Department Stores Inc. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. (In re Ames Department Stores Inc.) · filed 2014-07-03(d)

However, Plaintiff argues that, as a threshold matter, because a court ordinarily has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, mandatory withdrawal is not available under § 157(d) where the substantial and material application of non-bankruptcy federal law is only necessary to determine whether the Bankruptcy Court has subject-matter jurisdiction. ... The Court finds this argument unpersuasive, and holds that mandatory withdrawal is available in such circumstances.

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

Legal Newsline v. Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC · filed 2014-07-23(d)

The court will, therefore, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), withdraw the reference as to each of the non-core actions and reference those proceedings to one United States Magistrate Judge for full pretrial case management consistent with this court’s Order of Referral and the Local Civil Rules of this court.

Section 157(d) requires the district court to weigh the relevant factors when deciding whether cause exists to withdraw a bankruptcy reference; a jury demand alone does not require immediate withdrawal.

Feldman ex rel. Estate of Image Masters, Inc. v. ABN AMRO Mortgage Group Inc. · filed 2014-08-19(d)

While neither the passage of time, nor the Trustee’s about-face concerning her choice of forum are themselves dispositive, neither is her demand for a jury trial in this Court. Instead, we must consider all of the relevant factors. In so doing, we find that withdrawal is not appropriate at this time.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause when a contractual venue provision strongly favors another forum.

ResCap Liquidating Trust v. Primary Capital Advisors, LLC · filed 2014-09-16(d)

The prevention of forum shopping factor also strongly supports withdrawal of the reference and determination of the transfer issue at this time, given the clarity of the contractual venue provision. ... Accordingly, there is cause to withdraw the reference of this adversary proceeding at this time, and PCA’s motion is granted to the extent it seeks such relief.

Section 157(d)'s mandatory withdrawal reaches only the qualifying claim or proceeding, and requires material and substantial consideration of the relevant nonbankruptcy law.

In re Miller Automotive Group, Inc. · filed 2014-10-24(d)

Third, even had they been, withdrawal of reference would have been mandatory only as to such claims or proceedings, not the entire case or even the cash collateral motion. Finally, Needier assumes that even if such claims had been raised, they would have required the kind of material and substantial consideration of the Dealer Day in Court Act which would have made withdrawal of the reference mandatory, and this has not been demonstrated.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal when the applicable nonbankruptcy federal law can be applied without substantial and material interpretation.

In re Temecula Valley Bancorp, Inc. · filed 2014-12-08(d)

In short, the clear weight of authority indicates that the federal non-bankruptcy law cited by the FDIC is either totally inapplicable to the adversary proceeding or can be applied without the need for substantial and material interpretation that would necessitate mandatory withdrawal.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to keep a proceeding referred to bankruptcy court when the factors governing permissive withdrawal favor doing so, even if the bankruptcy court cannot enter final judgment.

Thaler v. Parker · filed 2014-12-09(d)

For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that withdrawal is not warranted at this juncture, even though the Bankruptcy Court lacks the constitutional authority to enter final judgment on the claims against Ferrara.

Section 157(d) requires mandatory withdrawal only when a proceeding requires substantial consideration of nonbankruptcy federal law; significant state law issues alone do not qualify.

One Longhorn Land I, L.P. v. Presley · filed 2015-04-13(d)

But the plain language of the withdrawal statute makes withdrawal mandatory only where a case requires substantial consideration of non-bankruptcy federal law.

A party seeking discretionary withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference under § 157(d) must move timely and show cause.

Irvin v. Faller · filed 2015-05-07(d)

Thus, a court may grant a party’s motion for discretionary withdrawal of reference if (1) the motion was “timely,” and (2) the movant has shown “cause.” ... Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s motion because the motion was not timely and because Defendant failed to show cause for withdrawal.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding when resolving it requires substantial and material consideration of non-Title 11 federal law alongside Title 11 issues.

Eli Global, LLC v. University Directories, LLC · filed 2015-05-15(d)

The resolution of Defendant Debtors’ trademark infringement claim will require significant consideration of non-Title 11 federal law, satisfying § 157(d).

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

Truss v. LVNV Funding, LLC · filed 2015-05-26(d)

This court, in line with the other courts in this circuit, will follow the latter approach. ... Whether withdrawal is required, then, turns on whether substantial and material consideration of the FDCPA will be necessary to the resolution of the dispute.

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

Hooper v. LVNV Funding, LLC · filed 2015-05-26(d)

This court, in line with the other courts in this circuit, will follow the latter approach. ... Whether withdrawal is required, then, turns on whether substantial and material consideration of the FDCPA will be necessary to the resolution of the dispute.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference solely because the bankruptcy court may lack constitutional authority to enter final judgment.

Ka Kin Wong v. HSBC Bank USA (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.) · filed 2015-06-15(d)

Regardless of the approach selected, this Court notes that whether the bankruptcy court may constitutionally enter a final judgment is not in and of itself determinative of whether the Court should grant a motion to withdraw the reference.

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

Thompson v. LVNV Funding, LLC · filed 2015-06-18(d)

Accordingly, substantial and material consideration of the FDCPA will be required in order to resolve Thompson’s claims, so that mandatory withdrawal of the reference is necessary, and LVNV’s motion must be granted.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a referred proceeding for cause when the bankruptcy court cannot impose the criminal contempt sanctions sought.

United States Trustee v. Institute of Personal Wealth Credit Counselors International (In re Rowett) · filed 2015-07-29(d)

On its own or on timely motion of a party, this Court may withdraw any referred proceeding for cause shown. 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). ... Here, the Court is persuaded that cause exists to withdraw the reference of proceedings related to the Trustee’s request for the institution of criminal contempt proceedings. ... However, the law of this Circuit ties the bankruptcy court’s hands by preventing it from imposing criminal contempt sanctions.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to leave a proceeding with the bankruptcy court for pretrial matters even when the parties are entitled to a jury trial.

Standish v. Jackson (In re Albertson) · filed 2015-07-30(d)

Although the defendants are entitled to a jury trial on all three claims, I do not find that the preservation of the right to a jury trial weighs in favor of withdrawing the reference at this time.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of the reference when resolving a pleading calls only for identifying whose conduct its allegations concern, without interpreting nonbankruptcy federal law.

In re Motors Liquidation Co. · filed 2015-08-27(d)

Ruling on the MDL Plaintiffs’ No Strike Pleading does not require the Bankruptcy Court to rule on the underlying merits of the MDL Complaint. Instead, it merely requires the Court to examine the allegations in the operative MDL Complaint to determine whether they pertain to conduct by Old GM or New GM. Accordingly, there is no reason why the Bankruptcy Court would have to interpret federal non-bankruptcy law.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy proceeding solely because a party refuses to consent to trial before the bankruptcy court.

Wiscovitch-Rentas v. Glaxosmithkline Puerto Rico, Inc. · filed 2015-09-28(d)

The court, at this juncture, does not find cause for which the above-captioned adversary proceeding, entirely composed of bankruptcy-related issues, should be withdrawn from the Bankruptcy Court and adjudicated by the undersigned. By itself, Defendant’s refusal to consent is insufficient basis for withdrawal.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of the reference for an entire adversary proceeding when a party is entitled to a jury trial on some claims.

Desmond v. Ng · filed 2015-10-08(d)

As Defendant is entitled to a jury trial on at least some of the claims brought by the Trustee, the court finds adequate cause under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) to withdraw the reference to the Bankruptcy Court as to the entire Adversary Proceeding.

After a district court withdraws the reference, the bankruptcy court cannot preside over the withdrawn proceeding or the claims within it.

In re Grass Valley Holdings · filed 2015-11-05(d)

Because the District Court has withdrawn the reference of AP 15-02141, this Court can no longer preside over any of the controversies found in AP 15-02141, including the Claims.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause, considering core status, bankruptcy administration, forum shopping, resources, speed, and any jury demand.

Demmons v. R3 Education, Inc. · filed 2016-03-18(d)

This Court does not find that “permissive” withdrawal is warranted in this case. 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 or on timely motion of any party, for cause shown.” As already stated, in determining “cause shown,” the district courts consider six factors: (1) whether the matter is core or non-core, (2) whether promotion of uniformity in bankruptcy administration will be achieved, (3) whether forum shopping and confusion is reduced, (4) whether debtors’ and creditors’ resources are conserved, (5) whether the bankruptcy process is expedited, and (6) whether a party has demanded a jury trial.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to deny withdrawal of the reference when judicial economy favors bankruptcy court supervision of pretrial matters, even if a jury trial may later require withdrawal.

JLL Consultants, Inc. v. Goldman Kurland & Mohidin, LLP (In re AgFeed USA, LLC) · filed 2016-09-26(d)

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

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause and requires withdrawal when the statute’s federal-law conditions are met.

Facebook, Inc. v. Vachani · filed 2017-08-31(d)

Second, withdrawal may be permissive. “[T]he district court may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding ... on timely motion of any party, for cause shown.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(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.” Sec. Farms, 124 F.3d at 1008. For either permissive or mandatory withdrawal, “[t]he burden of persuasion is on the party seeking withdrawal.” In re Tamalpais, 451 B.R. at 8.

Section 157(d) requires a motion to withdraw a bankruptcy reference to be timely and supported by cause.

Strauss v. Cole · filed 2017-12-29(d)

Section 157(d) requires a motion to withdraw the reference to be “timely” filed. The Bankruptcy Code does not define “timely” for purpose of § 157(d), but courts generally construe it to mean that a party seeking withdrawal of the reference must file such a motion as soon as practicable, or as promptly as possible in light of the developments in the bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 157(d) permits permissive withdrawal for cause and requires mandatory withdrawal when resolving a proceeding requires both title 11 and nonbankruptcy federal law.

Stok Folk + Kon, P.A. v. Fusion Homes, LLC · filed 2018-03-16(d)

may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding referred under this section, on its own motion or on timely motion of any party, for cause shown. The district court shall, on timely motion of a party, so withdraw a proceeding if the court determines that resolution of the proceeding requires consideration of both title 11 and other laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce. ... This statute allows two types of withdrawal: (1) mandatory and (2) permissive. Mandatory withdrawal is required if the proceeding requires consideration of both title 11 and nonbankruptcy code federal law. ... The issue at hand, whether Fusion has shown an exception to a state law retaining lien, does not present issues of either federal or bankruptcy law. Mandatory withdrawal is therefore not appropriate.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal when resolution requires consideration of title 11 and other federal laws, and permits withdrawal for cause on a timely motion.

In Re. Acosta · filed 2018-04-06(d)

28 U.S.C. § 157(d) describes the circumstances for mandatory or discretionary withdrawal of the reference to the bankruptcy court. The district court shall withdraw a proceeding “if the court determines that resolution of the proceeding requires consideration of both title 11 and other laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce.” ... 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) also permits the district court to withdraw a proceeding, in whole or in part, “on timely motion of any party . . . for cause shown.” A motion is timely “if it was made as promptly as possible in light of the developments in the bankruptcy proceeding” or, in other words, “at the first reasonable opportunity.” ... Even if the motion were treated as timely filed, Plaintiff has not shown cause for withdrawal.

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

In Re: Steven C. Lloyd · filed 2018-12-12(d)

As resolution of the proceedings does not require consideration of the laws of the United States, withdrawal of reference is not mandatory.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause when a defendant has preserved a jury trial right and does not consent to a jury trial in bankruptcy court.

Rund v. Kirkland (In re EPD Inv. Co.) · filed 2018-12-17(d)

If a defendant has preserved his right to a jury trial and does not consent to a jury trial in the bankruptcy court, the defendant has shown cause for withdrawal of the reference. ... Because he has demanded a jury trial, has not filed a proof of claim against the estate, and has not consented to a jury trial in the bankruptcy court, he has a right to a jury trial conducted by the Court. ... The Court, finding there is good cause, and finding this case is ready for trial, withdraws the reference to the bankruptcy court as to the claims against Kirkland.

Section 157 permits a district court to withdraw the reference of an adversary proceeding when the defendant preserved the right to contest bankruptcy court jurisdiction and no longer has a proof of claim there.

Foster v. Conner · filed 2019-07-02(d)

It follows that Conner’s preservation of his right to contest bankruptcy court jurisdiction, combined with the absence of proof of claim in bankruptcy court, must result in a withdrawal of the adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court.

Section 157(d) places the burden on the party seeking withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference to show cause for withdrawal.

Energy Harbor LLC v. Bluestone Energy Sales Corp. · filed 2019-07-30(d)

The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating that the reference should be withdrawn.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference on a timely motion when resolution requires considering both title 11 and a federal law regulating activities affecting interstate commerce.

Runsted v. Clarke and Associates Inc · filed 2019-08-21(d)

As is relevant here, withdrawal of reference is required, on the timely motion of a party, if the court determines that resolution of the bankruptcy proceeding requires consideration of not only title 11, but also other laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce. ... The Court finds accordingly that withdrawal of reference is required under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) and DUCivR 83-7.4(b)(2).

Section 157(d) requires a party seeking withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference to show cause; a core dischargeability proceeding weighs against withdrawal.

Nehme v. El Khoury · filed 2019-09-26(d)

As pertinent here, “[t]he 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.” ... In this case, the first factor strongly weighs against withdraw of reference because the adversary proceeding is a core proceeding in the bankruptcy court. ... Where defendants have not met their burden to show cause for the withdrawal, the instant motion must be denied.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to deny permissive withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when the proceeding is core and withdrawal would not promote efficient bankruptcy administration.

Schott v. C-Squared Managment, LLC · filed 2019-11-14(d)

In this case, where the adversary proceeding is a “core” proceeding, Defendant has submitted a proof of claim and therefore is not entitled to a jury trial, and it is not clear how judicial efficiency or the administration of the bankruptcy case would be promoted by withdrawal of the reference, the Court believes that forum shopping or opportunistic delay could be the motivating factor in filing the Motion. Therefore, this factor weighs against withdrawing the reference.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause when a jury trial is required and the parties do not consent to trial in bankruptcy court.

Scott v. 1105 Inglecress, LLC · filed 2019-11-26(d)

Consequently, the court finds cause to withdraw the reference of this proceeding.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw the bankruptcy reference for trial of noncore state-law claims when a party has not consented to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction.

Kensington Apartment Properties, LLC v. Loanvest IX, L.P. · filed 2020-01-27(d)

The case is ready to proceed to trial on these state-law claims, and Kensington has not consented to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction, so a withdrawal of reference is appropriate.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for final trial while leaving pretrial proceedings with the bankruptcy court when its familiarity with the dispute favors doing so and sufficient prejudice from that arrangement has not been shown.

Natixis Funding Corporation v. Genon Mid-Atlantic, LLC · filed 2020-01-28(d)

This approach would eliminate the advantage of the Bankruptcy Court’s lengthy history with the parties and the issues that are raised in this adversary action and that are recounted in the R&R. To forfeit this enormous advantage and adopt the approach recommended by Plaintiff would require adduction of overwhelming evidence of prejudice. None has been offered.

Section 157(d) requires a party seeking withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference to show why withdrawal is warranted; a conclusory assertion that withdrawal is mandatory does not meet that burden.

Mumma v. Double M Real Estate, LLC · filed 2020-01-31(d)

Mumma’s motion simply states facts that he believes should not be before the bankruptcy court and then asserts in conclusory fashion that withdrawal is mandatory under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). Given the complete absence of legal argument to support his motion, the court finds that Mumma has not met his burden to prove that withdrawal of the reference is warranted.

Mandatory withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference requires substantial and material non-bankruptcy federal law issues to dominate the bankruptcy issues.

Matosantos Commercial Corp. v. Matosantos-Vallecillo · filed 2020-02-07(d)

After a careful analysis of all the pleadings, the Court finds that this case does not present the necessary elements for a mandatory withdrawal of reference at this stage of the proceedings as the parties seeking the withdrawal failed to show that substantial and material non-bankruptcy federal law issues are dominant.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of the bankruptcy reference when the claims arise under Title 11 and state law, with no other federal law at issue.

Mukamal v. MDL Express Services, Inc. · filed 2020-02-14(d)

All three counts are brought pursuant to either Title 11 or Florida state law, and therefore the withdrawal in this case is permissive rather than mandatory.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause; non-core state law claims weigh in favor of withdrawal.

Guilbeau Marine, Inc. v. T&C Marine, LLC · filed 2020-02-18(d)

Accordingly, these claims are non-core state law matters, and this factor weighs in favor of withdrawal of the reference.

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

Curtis v. Cerner Corporation · filed 2020-04-27(d)

Therefore, the Court holds that “cause” has been established under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) to withdraw the reference to the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference for cause when a party timely demands a jury trial that the bankruptcy court cannot conduct without the parties’ consent.

Frictionless World, LLC v. Frictionless, LLC · filed 2020-05-26(d)

Therefore, Movants’ timely demand for a jury trial is cause for withdrawal of the reference to the Bankruptcy Court.

Section 157(d) requires a party seeking withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference to show cause, including that the withdrawal factors favor it.

Picard v. Greiff · filed 2020-06-04(d)

Accordingly, Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the Orion factors favor withdrawal of the bankruptcy reference under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy referral for cause on its own motion, even when no party requested withdrawal.

The Diocese of Rochester v. U.S. Small Business Administration · filed 2020-06-10(d)

In other words, while Plaintiffs should have requested a withdrawal of the referral when they commenced the action, their failure to do so does not prevent the Court from determining sua sponte that withdrawal is appropriate.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy referral for cause, including to decide a motion whose issues the court has already addressed.

Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. v. Hiscox Insurance Company, Inc. · filed 2020-06-11(d)

Because the Court has already ruled on the motion for preliminary injunction and now issues this Decision and Order to further explain its reasoning, and because its reasoning also encompasses the pending motion to dismiss, the Court finds cause to partially withdraw any bankruptcy referral of this matter for the limited purpose of issuing a ruling on the motion to dismiss.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to deny withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference as premature when a possible jury trial can be addressed once the case is ready for trial.

Slott v. Anan Enterprise, Inc. · filed 2020-06-23(d)

But, even if Anan is entitled to a jury trial—a question the Court does not answer today—withdrawal would nonetheless be inappropriate at this time.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when the issues presented involve interpreting the Bankruptcy Code.

Cordova v. City of Chicago · filed 2020-06-25(d)

In this case, the City has not met its burden to show that mandatory withdrawal is warranted. All three issues in the City’s motion to dismiss involve interpreting the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to delay withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when the bankruptcy court’s familiarity with the matter favors continued pretrial proceedings there.

Weinman v. Cordova · filed 2020-06-26(d)

The Court concludes that the best course is to delay withdrawal of the reference so that the Court may continue to benefit from the Bankruptcy Court’s expertise and familiarity with the matter.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to leave pretrial and discovery matters with the bankruptcy court when a possible jury trial may require withdrawal of the reference later.

Schott v. Massengale · filed 2020-06-30(d)

That there may be the right to a jury trial or non-core matters does not require this Court to immediately withdraw the reference.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy proceeding from the bankruptcy court when the combined circumstances show cause for withdrawal.

Thompson v. Cardwell · filed 2020-07-01(d)

While none of these factors alone is dispositive, combined the parties have demonstrated that it is appropriate for the Court to exercise its discretion and withdraw the case.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause; a jury demand, the need to interpret nonbankruptcy law, and the absence of delay or forum shopping can support permissive withdrawal.

Shepard v. Cardwell · filed 2020-07-08(d)

Accordingly, permissive withdrawal is appropriate here.

Section 157(d) does not justify permissive withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference solely because the district court may later review the bankruptcy court’s decision.

Mukamal v. Scottsdale Insurance Company · filed 2020-07-23(d)

To take this matter from the bankruptcy court solely for the reason that the district court could later be called on in an appellate-review manner would render the entire statute superfluous.

When withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference is not mandatory, the party seeking permissive withdrawal bears the burden of showing cause.

Mukamal v. Scottsdale Insurance Company · filed 2020-07-24(d)

Where mandatory withdrawal is not required, the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating cause for the district court to grant a permissive withdrawal.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause, considering factors such as whether the proceeding is core and whether it involves a jury demand.

Doe v. Archdiocese of New Orleans Indemnity, Inc. · filed 2020-08-11(d)

There must be “cause” to exercise permissive withdrawal. ... The Court finds that the balance of factors favors withdrawing the reference.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to deny permissive withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when bankruptcy court expertise would aid the case.

Cross Keys Bank v. Karcredit L L C · filed 2020-08-26(d)

This Court believes that it would benefit by the expertise of the bankruptcy court in this matter and exercises its discretion to deny withdrawal of reference to the bankruptcy court.

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

French v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION · filed 2020-08-28(d)

Moreover, the matter was referred to this Court from the district court and the Bankruptcy Courtis without authority to withdraw the reference and send the matter back to the district court.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when resolving the proceeding calls only for routine application, rather than significant interpretation, of nonbankruptcy federal law.

Picard v. The Estate of Robert Shervyn Savin · filed 2020-09-08(d)

Accordingly, because Defendants have not offered any explanation as to why the determination they seek will require significant interpretation of non-bankruptcy federal laws rather than a routine application of the Constitution and federal statutes to a particular set of facts “such that they may overcome the ‘narrow’ scope this Circuit gives to mandatory withdrawal under section 157(d)[,]” they have not met their burden of showing that withdrawal of the reference is mandatory.

Section 157(d) requires a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference when resolving the proceeding requires material consideration of non-bankruptcy federal law.

Trustees of the Teamsters Miscellaneous Security Trust Fund v. United International Health Net, Inc. · filed 2020-09-15(d)

The Court concludes that this case requires “material consideration of non-bankruptcy federal law” and is subject to mandatory withdrawal under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) permits a district court to leave a proceeding with the bankruptcy court even if the district court may later review its actions or conduct a jury trial.

In re Luminance Recovery Center, LLC · filed 2020-09-29(d)

The mere fact that this Court may eventually have to review the actions of the Bankruptcy Court or preside over a jury trial does not mean that leaving the adversarial action in the Bankruptcy Court is inefficient.

Section 157(d) allows a district court to withdraw a bankruptcy reference for cause, including a timely demand for a jury trial.

Lone Star Bank of West Texas v. Rabo Agrifinance, LLC · filed 2020-10-23(d)

The timely demand for a jury trial constitutes good cause.

Section 157(d) permits withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when the parties seek a jury trial, the bankruptcy judges lack authority to conduct one, and the motion to withdraw is unopposed.

New City Auto Group, Inc v. O'Rourke & Moody LLP · filed 2020-11-05(d)

But more importantly, as recognized by Judge Ahler in this case, even though the Plaintiff should have filed a motion seeking withdrawal of the reference at the time of filing its complaint and jury demand, because the motion to withdraw has not been opposed, and because Defendants O’Rourke & Moody, LLP and Michael Moody have clearly expressed their desire to exercise their right to a jury trial [DE 1 at ¶¶ 14, 16], the motion to withdraw the reference with regard to this adversary proceeding should be granted.

Section 157(d) permitted withdrawal of the bankruptcy reference in this case.

Fishing Vessel Owners Marine Ways Inc v. United States Small Business Administration · filed 2020-11-04(d)

The Court finds agrees and finds that withdrawal is warranted in this case.

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal when resolving the proceeding presents no substantial and material questions of nonbankruptcy federal law.

In re: Linnette Resto-Feliciano and Luis Osvaldo Figueroa-Kercado · filed 2020-12-21(d)

Ultimately, the adversary proceeding does not present “substantial and material” questions of non-code federal law.

Section 157(d) authorized withdrawal of the bankruptcy reference for cause in this case.

Herendeen v. Ford Motor Credit Company LLC · filed 2020-12-22(d)

Upon review of the motion, response, court file, argument of counsel, and the record, the Court finds that cause has been shown for withdrawal of the reference under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

Section 157(d) does not require withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference merely because a statute involved in the proceeding is complicated.

Ucarer v. ALA Turk, Inc. · filed 2021-02-17(d)

Merely stating that a statute is “very complicated” is not a legally sufficient basis for mandatory withdrawal.

Section 157(d) requires withdrawal of a bankruptcy reference when resolving essential, complex RICO issues calls for substantial and material interpretation of RICO and the activities at issue affect interstate commerce.

Harlow v. Wells Fargo & Co. · filed 2021-03-09(d)

The court finds that these issues are sufficiently complex to mandate withdrawal, and the parties do not seem to dispute that Wells Fargo’s activities at issue affect interstate commerce.

Section 157(d) permits a district court to forgo a bankruptcy reference for cause when the nature of the claims, a jury-trial request, and judicial efficiency favor keeping the proceeding in district court.

Brody v. Bruner · filed 2021-03-19(d)

Based on the nature of the claims at issue, MAB exercising his right to a jury trial, and the Court’s familiarity with the parties and issues in this case, and no other factors weighing in favor of reference, the Court finds that cause has been shown for permissive withdrawal of the automatic reference to the bankruptcy court, or, in this instance, cause has been shown to abstain from referring this proceeding.