United States District Court, D. Arizona
DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge.
Defendants have moved to withdraw the reference of this case to the bankruptcy court. Doc. 2. The motion has been fully briefed. Docs. 19, 21. For the reasons stated below the Court will deny the motion.
On May 4, 2012, GDG Partners, LCC filed a voluntary Chapter 7 petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Arizona. Doc. 2 at 2; Doc. 19 at 1. Plaintiff Flores was named as Trustee. On April 2, 2014 Plaintiff initiated an Adversary Proceeding, claiming (i) fraudulent transfer under A.R.S. § 44-1004, (ii) fraudulent transfer under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a), (iii) in the alternative, a preference under 11 U.S.C. § 547, (iv) post-petition transfer of estate assets under 11 U.S.C. § 549, (v) conversion of bankruptcy estate assets, and (vi) violation of the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3). Doc. 2 at 2; Doc. 19 at 2. On May 16, 2014, Defendants filed an answer and a motion to dismiss counts four, five and six. In the answer, Defendants asserted their right to a jury trial and did not consent to a jury trial in the bankruptcy court.
II. Legal Standard.
The bankruptcy court "may hear and determine all cases under title 11 and all core proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11." 28 U.S.C. §157(b)(1). A bankruptcy court may also hear "a proceeding that is not a core proceeding but that is otherwise related to a case under title 11." Id. at § 157(c)(1). "[T]he district court may withdraw... any case or proceeding referred under this section, on its own motion or on timely motion of any party, for cause shown." Id. at § 157(d).
To determine if cause for withdrawal exists, this 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 v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 124 F.3d 999, 1008 (9th Cir. 1997). The Court must "evaluate whether the claim is core or non-core, since it is upon this issue that [such] questions of efficiency and uniformity will turn." In re Orion Pictures Corp., 4 F.3d 1095, 1101 (2d Cir. 1993).
Defendants move to withdraw the reference to the bankruptcy court because (1) the Bankruptcy Court cannot enter a final judgment on the fraudulent transfer claims; (2) Defendants have demanded a jury trial in the District Court; and (3) there is cause to withdraw the reference. Doc. 2. Defendants' arguments are addressed in turn.
A. Fraudulent Transfer Claims.
Defendants argue that the Court should withdraw the reference because the bankruptcy court does not have jurisdiction to enter final judgments on these claims because they are not core proceedings, but rather may only "submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court." Doc. 2 at 3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1)). Congress enacted the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984 ("the Amendments") to cure the constitutional defect of the Bankruptcy Act of 1978, which impermissibly shifted certain Article III powers to bankruptcy courts. Sec. Farms v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 124 F.3d 999, 1008 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing constitutional ruling in N. Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982)). In the Amendments, Congress delineated the role of bankruptcy judges with respect to both core and non-core bankruptcy proceedings. 28 U.S.C. § 157. For core proceedings, the bankruptcy court may issue final orders, subject to the district court's appellate review. Id. § 157(b)(1). For non-core proceedings, the bankruptcy court may issue findings of fact and law, but the district court must issue final orders, and all non-core matters which are appealed are subject to the district court's de novo review. Id. § 157(c)(1).
Plaintiff does not dispute Defendants' claim that the fraudulent transfer claims are not core proceedings. Doc. 19 at 2. Instead, Plaintiff argues that there is no requirement that the reference be withdrawn simply because non-core proceedings exist. Id.
The Court agrees with Plaintiff. As a constitutional matter, the bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to enter final judgment on non-core proceedings, but the Supreme Court in Stern v. Marshall did not hold that bankruptcy courts are barred from hearing such claims and issuing proposed findings of fact upon which the district court can base its final judgment. Stern v. Marshall, 131 S.Ct. 2594, 2620, 180 L.Ed.2d 475 (2011) (noting that the appealing party "has not argued that the bankruptcy courts are barred from hearing all counterclaims or proposing findings of fact and conclusions of law on those matters, but rather that it must be the district court that finally decide[s] them") (internal quotes omitted). The Supreme Court clarified this directive this year in Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, 134 S.Ct. 2165, 2168 (2014):
We hold today that when, under Stern 's reasoning, the Constitution does not permit a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment on a bankruptcy-related claim, the relevant statute nevertheless permits a bankruptcy court to issue proposed findings of fact and ...