John Richards Homes Building Co. v. STN.com (In re John Richards Homes Building Co.)

E.D. Michigan

John Richards Homes Building Co. v. STN.com (In re John Richards Homes Building Co.)

320 B.R. 138, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27400

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan

DecidedAugust 5, 2004

DocketBankruptcy No. 02-54689; Civ. Nos. 03-40277, 03-40278

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 320 B.R. 138 (John Richards Homes Building Co. v. STN.com (In re John Richards Homes Building Co.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John Richards Homes Building Co. v. STN.com (In re John Richards Homes Building Co.), 320 B.R. 138, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27400 (E.D. Mich. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO WITHDRAW THE REFERENCE TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT

GADOLA, District Judge.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and E.D. Mich. LR 83.50(a), bankruptcy cases are automatically referred from the district court to the bankruptcy court. Before this Court are two nearly-identical motions filed by the two above-referenced Garnishee Defendants. The motions seek to withdraw this referral, or reference, to the bankruptcy court, and, as a consequence, the motions request that this Court, instead of the bankruptcy court, adjudicate certain garnishment matters. These two motions were assigned to this Court because of a companion case before this Court involving the above-referenced Plaintiff (case number 03-40109, Kevin Adell v. John Richards Homes Building Company, L.L.C.).

Withdrawing the reference in this situation is permissive; that is, withdrawal is subject to this Court’s discretion. See 28 [139]*139U.S.C. § 157(d); In re Kiefer, 276 B.R. 196, 198 (E.D.Mich.2002) (Gadola, J.); In re Elder-Beerman Stores Corp., Nos. C-3-96-378, C-3-97-299, 1997 WL 1774875, at *2 n. 4 (S.D.Ohio Aug.1, 1997); In re Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc., 189 B.R. 142, 143-44 (S.D.Ohio 1995).

In exercising this discretion, the Court will deny the motions to withdraw the reference because — as articulated on pages one to five of Plaintiffs memorandums in opposition to the respective motions — the matters that the two Garnishee Defendants seek to challenge in this Court are precluded from relitigation under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, and, as a result, the grounds for withdrawing the reference lack merit. See JRH’s Memos, in Opp. 1-5; Becherer v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 43 F.3d 1054, 1069-70 (6th Cir.1995) (quoting S.W. Airlines Co. v. Tex. Int’l Airlines, Inc., 546 F.2d 84, 95 (5th Cir.1977)); Jones v. Craig, 212 F.2d 187, 187-88 (6th Cir.1954); 18A Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure: Jurisdiction 2d § 4451 (2002). Therefore, these garnishment matters should continue to proceed before the bankruptcy court.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, in case number 03-40277, the motion to withdraw the reference [docket entry 1] is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in case number 03-40278, the motion to withdraw the reference [docket entry 1] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO WITHDRAW THE REFERENCE TO THE BANKRUPTCY COURT

GADOLA, District Judge.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and E.D. Mich. LR 83.50(a), bankruptcy cases are automatically referred from the district court to the bankruptcy court. Before this Court are two nearly-identical motions filed by the two above-referenced Garnishee Defendants. The motions seek to withdraw this referral, or reference, to the bankruptcy court, and, as a consequence, the motions request that this Court, instead of the bankruptcy court, adjudicate certain garnishment matters. These two motions were assigned to this Court because of a companion case before this Court involving the above-referenced Plaintiff (case number 03-40109, Kevin Adell v. John Richards Homes Building Company, L.L.C.).

Withdrawing the reference in this situation is permissive; that is, withdrawal is subject to this Court’s discretion. See 28 [139]*139U.S.C. § 157(d); In re Kiefer, 276 B.R. 196, 198 (E.D.Mich.2002) (Gadola, J.); In re Elder-Beerman Stores Corp., Nos. C-3-96-378, C-3-97-299, 1997 WL 1774875, at *2 n. 4 (S.D.Ohio Aug.1, 1997); In re Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc., 189 B.R. 142, 143-44 (S.D.Ohio 1995).

In exercising this discretion, the Court will deny the motions to withdraw the reference because — as articulated on pages one to five of Plaintiffs memorandums in opposition to the respective motions — the matters that the two Garnishee Defendants seek to challenge in this Court are precluded from relitigation under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, and, as a result, the grounds for withdrawing the reference lack merit. See JRH’s Memos, in Opp. 1-5; Becherer v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 43 F.3d 1054, 1069-70 (6th Cir.1995) (quoting S.W. Airlines Co. v. Tex. Int’l Airlines, Inc., 546 F.2d 84, 95 (5th Cir.1977)); Jones v. Craig, 212 F.2d 187, 187-88 (6th Cir.1954); 18A Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure: Jurisdiction 2d § 4451 (2002). Therefore, these garnishment matters should continue to proceed before the bankruptcy court.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, in case number 03-40277, the motion to withdraw the reference [docket entry 1] is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in case number 03-40278, the motion to withdraw the reference [docket entry 1] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

320 B.R. 138, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-richards-homes-building-co-v-stncom-in-re-john-richards-homes-mied-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack