Black Stone Investment Group v. Ann Banda

• Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
• Decided: February 20, 2026
• Docket: 4:24-cv-01931
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ee □□ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

BLACK STONE INVESTMENT GROUP § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:24-CV-01931 § Debtor § ORDER Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed by Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge Eduardo V. Rodriguez. Doc. #1, In the Report and Recommendation, Judge Rodriguez informed the Court that Ann Banda (“Banda”), proceeding pro se, filed a Motion to Withdraw the Reference (the “Motion to Withdraw’) on May 16, 2024, in the Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. fd. Judge Rodriguz recommends that the Motion, and only the Motion, be withdrawn to this Court because the Motion appears to tangentially concern former Judge David Jones, /d. Judge Rodriguez further noted that the Motion was procedurally improper and “could be struck or dismissed for numerous reasons.” /d. Banda’s Motion to Withdraw requests that the Court withdraw the reference pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) (‘Section 157(d)”). Under the permissive withdrawal provision of Section 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.” 28 U.S.C, § 157(d); see also In re Morrison, 409 B.R. 384, 389 (S.D. Tex. 2009). “The decision to grant or deny this motion is committed to the discretion of the district court.” Veldekens v. GE AFS Holdings, Inc., 362 B.R. 762, 765 (8.D. Tex, 2007), “In the Fifth Circuit, courts consider six factors when evaluating whether the moving party has demonstrated ‘cause’ for withdrawal of the reference.” Jn re Morrison, 409 B.R. at 389. Those six factors are: (1) “core versus non-core matters,” (2) “fostering the economical use of the debtors’ and creditors’ resources,” (3)

“expediting the bankruptcy process,” (4) “reducing forum shopping and confusion,” (5) “whether jury demands have been made,” and (6) “promot[ing] uniformity in bankruptcy administration.” Id. Here, the Motion to Withdraw does not outline any specific cause for withdrawal of the reference, much less address the six factors district courts consider when evaluating such requests under Section 157(d), As such, the Court finds that that the Motion to Withdraw should be denied, See id. at 386 (denying withdrawal of the reference because the parties requesting withdrawal “failed to satisfy their burden to establish a ‘sound articulated foundation’ for permissive withdrawal of the reference”). For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts Judge Rodriguez’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. #1) and WITHDRAWS only the Motion to Withdraw. Furthermore, the Motion to Withdraw filed by Ann Banda on May 16, 2024, is hereby DENIED, and this civil action is DISMISSED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. It is so ORDERED.

FEB 20 2026 Date | The Honorable Al i H. Bennett United States Distrigt Judge