Ellis v. Bucknell Sato LLP

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 1, 2020
• Docket: 3:20-cv-05940
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 KATHRYN A. ELLIS, as Trustee for the CASE NO. 20-5940 RJB 11 Bankruptcy Estate of Diane Renee Erdmann, Adversarial Case No. 20-04036 BDL 12 Plaintiff, Bankruptcy Case No. 19-41238 MJH 13 v. 14 BUCKNELL SATO LLP fka Becknell ORDER ON MOTION TO Stehlik Sato and Orth LLP, a Washington WITHDRAW THE REFERENCE 15 limited liability partnership, 16 Defendant. 17 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Bucknell Sato LLP’s (“Bucknell”) 18 Motion for Withdrawal of Reference. Dkt. 1-1. The Court has considered the pleadings filed 19 regarding the motion and the remaining record. 20 For the reasons provided below, the Defendant’s motion to withdraw the reference from 21 the bankruptcy court (Dkt. 1-1) should be denied without prejudice, to be renewed, if appropriate 22 when the case is ready for trial. 23 24 1 This case is an adversarial proceeding arising from a bankruptcy case filed on April 18, 2 2019 by Diane Renee Erdman. Dkt. 1-1. The trustee of Ms. Erdman’s bankruptcy estate 3 (“Trustee”) filed this case against the Defendant seeking avoidance of transfers asserted to be 4 fraudulent or otherwise improper. Id. 5 Defendant filed its Answer to the Complaint on July 31, 2020. It demanded a jury trial

6 and also refused to consent to the bankruptcy court entering final orders or holding a jury trial. 7 Defendant now moves for withdrawal of the reference. Dkt. 1-1, at 5-12. The Trustee 8 opposes the motion. Dkt. 1-1, at 24-33. 9 On September 17, 2020, the bankruptcy court issued a recommendation that this Court 10 deny the motion to withdraw the reference until the case is ready for trial. Dkt. 1-1, at 41-44. 11 DISCUSSION 12 A district court may withdraw a reference toa bankruptcy court “for cause shown.” 28 13 U.S.C. § 157(d). In deciding whether cause existsto withdraw the reference, a district court 14 should consider “the efficient useof judicial resources, delay and costs to the parties, uniformity

15 of bankruptcy administration, the prevention of forum shopping and other related factors.” 16 Vacation Village, Inc. v. Clark County, Nev., (In re CEH Props., Ltd.), 497 F.3d 902, 914 (9th 17 Cir. 2007). 18 The recommendation of the bankruptcy court, which is attached to thisorder forease of 19 reference, should be adopted and themotionto withdraw the reference (Dkt. 1-1) should be 20 denied. Further, declining to withdraw the reference at this point in the case is the most efficient 21 use of judicial resources andthere is no significant delay or costs to the parties. Vacation 22 Village,at 914. It helps ensure uniform bankruptcy administration and prevents forum shopping. 23 Id. The motion should be denied without prejudice. 24 1 ORDER 2 It is ORDERED that: 3 e Defendant’s Motion for Withdrawal of Reference (Dkt. 1-1) IS DENIED 4 WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and 5 e This case is RE-REFERRED to U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Brian D. Lynch. 6 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 7 || to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 8 Dated this 1 day of October, 2020. 9 10 / (les 7 7B ya ll ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24