Hayden v. Western Steel Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 14, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00298
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 STEVEN MARK HAYDEN, Case No. 3:24-cv-00298-ART-CLB 4 Plaintiff, ORDER 5 v.

6 WESTERN STEEL INC. et al,

7 Defendants.

8 9 Before the Court is Plaintiff Steven Mark Hayden’s motion to withdraw the 10 reference. (ECF No. 1.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies the 11 motion. 12 I. DISCUSSION 13 Hayden initiated an adversary proceeding against Defendants Western 14 Steel Inc. and William B. Cashion in Nevada bankruptcy court on August 24, 15 2023. Steven Mark Hayden, Sr. v. Western Steel Inc., Case No. 3:23-AP-05012 at 16 ECF No. 1 (Bankr. Nev. 2023). On December 6, 2023, the bankruptcy court 17 ordered Hayden to show cause why the proceeding should not be dismissed for 18 lack of standing and failure to state a claim. Id. at ECF No. 12. On December 12, 19 2023, the court issued an order to show cause why sanctions should not be 20 entered due to filings which suggested that Hayden was abusing the judicial 21 process. Id. at ECF No. 17. On December 15, 2023, Hayden filed a notice of 22 voluntary dismissal. Id. at ECF No. 27. On January 9, 2024, the bankruptcy court 23 issued an order finding that Hayden’s notice of dismissal was effective to dismiss 24 the proceeding as to both defendants but retaining jurisdiction to determine the 25 issue of sanctions. Id. at ECF No. 35. On July 9, 2024, Hayden filed this motion 26 to withdraw the reference to district court. (ECF No. 1.) 27 A party who believes that a proceeding pending in the bankruptcy court 28 should instead be litigated before the district court may move for withdrawal of 1 || the reference pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). However, a bankruptcy court order 2 || dismissing an adversary proceeding moots a motion to withdraw the reference as 3 || to that adversary proceeding. See Lundahl v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 129 F. App'x 4 || 479, 480 (10th Cir. 2005) (motion to withdraw the reference was moot in light of 5 || dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy case); In re Szanto, No. 13-BK-51261- 6 || BTB, 2014 WL 4636340, at *1 (D. Nev. Sept. 16, 2014) (same); In re Lear Corp., 7 || 418 B.R. 47, 48 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (same); In re Garden Fresh Restaurants, LLC, No. 8 || 21-CV-1440 JLS (KSC), 2022 WL 410942, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2022) (same). 9 Here, because Hayden voluntarily dismissed the adversary proceeding, and 10 || the bankruptcy court retained jurisdiction only for the purpose of determining 11 || whether sanctions should be issued, Hayden’s motion to withdraw the reference 12 || is moot. 13 Hayden also requests a status conference. (ECF No. 3.) Because the Court 14 || has determined that his motion to withdraw the reference is moot, a status 15 || conference would not materially assist the determination of this case. The Court 16 || therefore denies this motion. 17 II. CONCLUSION 18 The Court therefore DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's motion to withdraw the 19 || reference (ECF No. 1). 20 The Court further DENIES Plaintiff's motion for a status conference (ECF 21 || No. 3). 22 The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 23 24 DATED: March 14, 2025 25 Ares jlorect ou 26 ANNE R. TRAUM 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28