Summary
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California denied without prejudice the Chapter 7 trustee’s motion to reset the hearing on her motion for summary judgment. The court held that the stay pending the district court’s consideration of the defendant’s motion to withdraw the reference was interlocutory, properly issued, and not subject to modification on the trustee’s current showing. The court concluded that the district court, rather than the bankruptcy court, should determine how dispositive motions should proceed after resolution of the withdrawal motion.
Holdings
- The bankruptcy court may reconsider, rescind, or modify its interlocutory stay order for sufficient cause while it retains jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding and before entry of final judgment.
- The trustee's due process and procedural rights were preserved because she received notice, filed an opposition to the stay, had the court consider that opposition, and was later permitted to seek reconsideration of the stay.
- The stay was properly issued under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 5011(c) because the defendant established the relevant stay factors.
- Judicial efficiency did not authorize the bankruptcy court to proceed with the summary-judgment motion or issue a report and recommendation before the district court decided the withdrawal motion.
Questions Presented
- Whether the bankruptcy court could reconsider or modify its interlocutory stay order pending the district court's decision on withdrawal of the reference.
- Whether the trustee's notice and opportunity to be heard were constitutionally and procedurally adequate when the stay was issued.
- Whether the stay was properly issued under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 5011(c).
- Whether judicial efficiency required the bankruptcy court to proceed with the summary-judgment motion or issue a report and recommendation before the district court decided the withdrawal motion.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (23)
- In re Lieb, 915 F.2d 180, 185 (5th Cir. 1990)(followed)
- Abney v. Kissel Co. (In re Kissel Co.), 105 F.3d 1324, 1325 (9th Cir. 1997)(followed)
- Security Farms v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 124 F.3d 999, 1007-08 (9th Cir. 1997)(followed)
- City of L.A. Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885, 887-88 (9th Cir. 2001)(followed)
- Moore v. Jas. H. Matthews & Co., 682 F.2d 830, 833 (9th Cir. 1982)(followed)
- Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 154 (9th Cir. 1993)(followed)
- U.S. v. Smith, 389 F.3d 944, 949 (9th Cir. 2004)(followed)
- Hanna Boys Ctr. v. Miller, 853 F.2d 682, 686 (9th Cir. 1988)(followed)
- Barrientos v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 633 F.3d 1186, 1189-91 (9th Cir. 2011)(distinguished)
- In re Baldwin United Corp., 57 B.R. 751, 754 (S.D. Ohio 1985)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 23.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…