Summary
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama denied Nikitris Hardy’s renewed petition for mandatory withdrawal of the automatic reference of her bankruptcy case from the bankruptcy court. The court held that Hardy had not shown that resolving her bankruptcy case required substantial and material consideration of non-Bankruptcy Code federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). Her motion for an extension of time was denied as moot, and the case was closed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether mandatory withdrawal of the automatic reference was required under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) because resolution of Hardy's bankruptcy case allegedly required substantial and material consideration of non-Bankruptcy-Code federal law.
- Whether Hardy's generalized assertions concerning due process, Article III authority, proofs of claim, counterclaims, and statutory rights established a basis for mandatory withdrawal.
Holdings
- Mandatory withdrawal under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) is required only when resolution of the proceeding requires substantial and material consideration of federal law outside Title 11; the mere application of well-settled nonbankruptcy law is insufficient.
- Hardy failed to establish that mandatory withdrawal was warranted, so her petition to withdraw the automatic reference was denied.
Key quotations
“For withdrawal to be warranted, the issues in question must require more than the mere application of well-settled or hornbook non-bankruptcy law; significant interpretation of the non-Code statute must be required.” (Discussion)
“Accordingly, her motion is due to be denied.” (Conclusion)
Factual background
Hardy voluntarily filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy with counsel on September 8, 2025, and her case was automatically referred to the district's bankruptcy court. She later proceeded pro se after counsel withdrew and after she converted the case to Chapter 7. Hardy sought withdrawal of the reference, asserting that her case implicated the Fifth Amendment, Article III adjudication, objections to proofs of claim, counterclaims, and statutory rights, but her motion provided only general and conclusory assertions without showing that resolving the bankruptcy case required substantial consideration of non-Title 11 law.
Procedural history
Hardy filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case in the Northern District of Alabama on September 8, 2025; the case was later voluntarily converted to Chapter 7. After proceeding pro se, Hardy filed a renewed petition seeking mandatory withdrawal of the automatic reference based on asserted constitutional and non-Bankruptcy-Code issues. The district court denied the petition, denied her motion for an extension of time as moot, and directed the Clerk to close the case.