1 2
3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 KIM C. KERRIGAN, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01851 8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION FOR 9 WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE v. 10 U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL 11 ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT 12 SOLELY AS OWNER TRUSTEE FOR VRMTG ASSET TRUST, 13 Defendant. 14
15 1. INTRODUCTION 16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Kim Kerrigan’s Motion for 17 Withdrawal of Reference. Dkt. No. 1-1. Having reviewed the motion and the 18 relevant record, the Court DENIES the motion. 19 2. BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiff Kim Kerrigan, the movant-debtor, filed her Chapter 13 Voluntary 21 Petition in August 2024. Dkt. No. 1.1 After encountering some difficulties in getting 22 1 For purposes of this background section, all docket references relate to the 23 underlying bankruptcy petition, No. 24-12041-CMA (Bankr. W.D. Wash.). 1 the plan confirmed, Kerrigan retained counsel in late September 2024 to help her 2 develop a Chapter 13 plan. Dkt. No. 20. With help from counsel, Kerrigan’s plan
3 was approved by Chief Bankruptcy Judge Alston on December 6, 2024. Dkt. No. 55. 4 From there, the proceedings became complicated. In May 2025, Kerrigan’s 5 counsel withdrew from the representation. Dkt. No. 70. Within a month, Kerrigan, 6 now representing herself, objected to Proof of Claim 2-1 which had been filed by a 7 trustee back in October 2024, see Dkt. No. 79, and sought to vacate the existing 8 plan, see Dkt. No. 78. The bankruptcy court denied Kerrigan’s motion to vacate,
9 Dkt. Nos. 91–92, and Kerrigan’s objection was later struck. Dkt. No. 157. 10 Meanwhile, Kerrigan moved for sanctions against U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as 11 trustee for VRMTG Asset Trust, the alleged creditor and subject of Kerrigan’s 12 Objection to Proof of Claim 2-1. Dkt. No. 97. The issue was fully briefed by the 13 parties, but Kerrigan then moved “under protest” to withdraw the reference to the 14 bankruptcy court, which she claims to have brought “solely to prevent any claim of 15 ‘deemed consent’ under the [bankruptcy] Court’s August 12, 2025 order [at Dkt.
16 Nos. 121, 122.]” Dkt. No. 130. The Court first addresses the legal standard and then 17 Kerrigan’s arguments. 18 3. DISCUSSION 19 3.1 Legal standard. 20 In general, district courts have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all 21 bankruptcy cases. 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a). But district courts may refer jurisdiction 22 over cases arising under the Bankruptcy Code—i.e., Title 11 of the U.S. Code—and 23 1 all proceedings arising in or related to a case arising under the Bankruptcy Code to 2 the United States Bankruptcy Courts. Id. § 157(a). This is the case in the Western
3 District of Washington, where “all cases under Title 11, and all proceedings under 4 Title 11 or arising in or related to a case under Title 11” are referred to “bankruptcy 5 judges of this district.” LCR 87(a). 6 As for matters referred under Section 157, the extent of the bankruptcy 7 court’s jurisdiction depends on whether the proceeding is “core” or “non-core.” 8 Section 157(b)(2) lists those proceedings defined as “core proceedings.” See In re
9 Harris, 590 F.3d 730, 738 (9th Cir. 2009). “Actions that do not depend on 10 bankruptcy laws for their existence and that could proceed in another court are 11 considered ‘non-core.’” Sec. Farms v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffers, 12 Warehousemen & Helpers, 124 F.3d 999, 1008 (9th Cir. 1997). In “core proceedings,” 13 the bankruptcy court “may enter appropriate orders and judgments,” but in “non- 14 core proceedings,” the bankruptcy court “shall submit proposed findings of facts and 15 conclusions of law to the district court” for consideration and review. 28 U.S.C. §
16 157(b)(1), (c)(1). “[B]ankruptcy courts cannot conduct jury trials on noncore matters, 17 where the parties have not consented.” In re Cinematronics, Inc., 916 F.2d 1444, 18 1449 (9th Cir. 1990). 19 Section 157 also authorizes the withdrawal of a reference of a matter to 20 bankruptcy court, either on permissive or mandatory grounds. 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). 21 The party seeking to withdraw the reference bears the burden of persuasion. See In
22 re Tamalpais Bancorp, 451 B.R. 6, 8 (N.D. Cal. 2011). “To determine whether cause 23 for permissive withdrawal exists, a district court ‘should first evaluate whether the 1 claim is core or non-core, since it is upon this issue that questions of efficiency and 2 uniformity will turn.’” In re uCast LLC, No. C23-1258, 2023 WL 6131084, at *2
3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2023) (quoting One Longhorn Land I, L.P. v. Presley, 529 B.R. 4 755, 762 (C.D. Cal. 2015). Next, courts should “consider the efficient use of judicial 5 resources, delay and costs to the parties, uniformity of bankruptcy administration, 6 the prevention of forum shopping, and other related factors.” Sec. Farms, 124 F.3d 7 at 1008. The Court discusses both factors below. 8 3.2 Whether the proceedings are core or non-core. 9 A non-core proceeding is an “action that do[es] not depend on bankruptcy 10 laws for [its] existence and that could proceed in another court.” Sec. Farms, 124 11 F.3d at 1008. 12 To begin, Kerrigan’s motion fails to identify what specifically she considers to 13 be the non-core issues in her case. The Court recognizes that Kerrigan is now 14 representing herself, but she still bears the burden of identifying particular issues 15 warranting withdrawal. See In re Tamalpais, 451 B.R. at 8. She fails to meet that 16 burden. 17 In her motion, she seeks to withdraw the reference as to (1) a motion for 18 sanctions filed in her underlying bankruptcy proceedings “to the extent it implicates 19 non-bankruptcy issues”; and (2) “matters intertwined with [her] Objection to Proof 20 of Claim 3-1 [sic] and any related claims.” Dkt. No. 1-1 at 19. The broad language 21 used to indicate the source of her requests—e.g., “to the extent it implicates,” 22 “matters intertwined,” and “any related claims”—lacks specificity and requires the 23 1 Court to guess at what Kerrigan means. Indeed, a movant seeking withdrawal must 2 identify specific proceedings, explain their location in the record, and demonstrate
3 why they fall outside the bankruptcy court’s core jurisdiction.2 Nevertheless, the 4 Court will try to decipher Kerrigan’s request to the best of its ability based on the 5 motion and the information readily available in the bankruptcy record. 6 The first issue that Kerrigan seeks to withdraw from the Bankruptcy Court’s 7 consideration is any “non-bankruptcy” implications raised in her motion for 8 sanctions. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 2. Kerrigan readily admits that her motion for sanctions
9 was brought under Bankruptcy Rule 9011 and 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). See Reply, In re: 10 Kim C. Kerrigan, No. 24-12041-CMA (Bankr. W.D. Wash. Aug. 5, 2025), Dkt. No. 11 118 at 2. Courts consider these types of disputes as core proceedings under § 12 157(b)(2)(A). See, e.g., In re Trevino, 615 B.R. 108, 127 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2020) 13 (proceeding involving a § 105(a) dispute was a core matter); In re Kilpatrick, No. 25- 14 30619, 2025 WL 3295748, at *15 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio Nov. 24, 2025) (“The 15 consideration of imposing sanctions under Bankruptcy Rule 9011(c) for filings made
16 with this Court is certainly within this Court’s core jurisdiction.”). She does not 17
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2
3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 KIM C. KERRIGAN, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01851 8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION FOR 9 WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE v. 10 U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL 11 ASSOCIATION, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT 12 SOLELY AS OWNER TRUSTEE FOR VRMTG ASSET TRUST, 13 Defendant. 14
15 1. INTRODUCTION 16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Kim Kerrigan’s Motion for 17 Withdrawal of Reference. Dkt. No. 1-1. Having reviewed the motion and the 18 relevant record, the Court DENIES the motion. 19 2. BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiff Kim Kerrigan, the movant-debtor, filed her Chapter 13 Voluntary 21 Petition in August 2024. Dkt. No. 1.1 After encountering some difficulties in getting 22 1 For purposes of this background section, all docket references relate to the 23 underlying bankruptcy petition, No. 24-12041-CMA (Bankr. W.D. Wash.). 1 the plan confirmed, Kerrigan retained counsel in late September 2024 to help her 2 develop a Chapter 13 plan. Dkt. No. 20. With help from counsel, Kerrigan’s plan
3 was approved by Chief Bankruptcy Judge Alston on December 6, 2024. Dkt. No. 55. 4 From there, the proceedings became complicated. In May 2025, Kerrigan’s 5 counsel withdrew from the representation. Dkt. No. 70. Within a month, Kerrigan, 6 now representing herself, objected to Proof of Claim 2-1 which had been filed by a 7 trustee back in October 2024, see Dkt. No. 79, and sought to vacate the existing 8 plan, see Dkt. No. 78. The bankruptcy court denied Kerrigan’s motion to vacate,
9 Dkt. Nos. 91–92, and Kerrigan’s objection was later struck. Dkt. No. 157. 10 Meanwhile, Kerrigan moved for sanctions against U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as 11 trustee for VRMTG Asset Trust, the alleged creditor and subject of Kerrigan’s 12 Objection to Proof of Claim 2-1. Dkt. No. 97. The issue was fully briefed by the 13 parties, but Kerrigan then moved “under protest” to withdraw the reference to the 14 bankruptcy court, which she claims to have brought “solely to prevent any claim of 15 ‘deemed consent’ under the [bankruptcy] Court’s August 12, 2025 order [at Dkt.
16 Nos. 121, 122.]” Dkt. No. 130. The Court first addresses the legal standard and then 17 Kerrigan’s arguments. 18 3. DISCUSSION 19 3.1 Legal standard. 20 In general, district courts have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all 21 bankruptcy cases. 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a). But district courts may refer jurisdiction 22 over cases arising under the Bankruptcy Code—i.e., Title 11 of the U.S. Code—and 23 1 all proceedings arising in or related to a case arising under the Bankruptcy Code to 2 the United States Bankruptcy Courts. Id. § 157(a). This is the case in the Western
3 District of Washington, where “all cases under Title 11, and all proceedings under 4 Title 11 or arising in or related to a case under Title 11” are referred to “bankruptcy 5 judges of this district.” LCR 87(a). 6 As for matters referred under Section 157, the extent of the bankruptcy 7 court’s jurisdiction depends on whether the proceeding is “core” or “non-core.” 8 Section 157(b)(2) lists those proceedings defined as “core proceedings.” See In re
9 Harris, 590 F.3d 730, 738 (9th Cir. 2009). “Actions that do not depend on 10 bankruptcy laws for their existence and that could proceed in another court are 11 considered ‘non-core.’” Sec. Farms v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffers, 12 Warehousemen & Helpers, 124 F.3d 999, 1008 (9th Cir. 1997). In “core proceedings,” 13 the bankruptcy court “may enter appropriate orders and judgments,” but in “non- 14 core proceedings,” the bankruptcy court “shall submit proposed findings of facts and 15 conclusions of law to the district court” for consideration and review. 28 U.S.C. §
16 157(b)(1), (c)(1). “[B]ankruptcy courts cannot conduct jury trials on noncore matters, 17 where the parties have not consented.” In re Cinematronics, Inc., 916 F.2d 1444, 18 1449 (9th Cir. 1990). 19 Section 157 also authorizes the withdrawal of a reference of a matter to 20 bankruptcy court, either on permissive or mandatory grounds. 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). 21 The party seeking to withdraw the reference bears the burden of persuasion. See In
22 re Tamalpais Bancorp, 451 B.R. 6, 8 (N.D. Cal. 2011). “To determine whether cause 23 for permissive withdrawal exists, a district court ‘should first evaluate whether the 1 claim is core or non-core, since it is upon this issue that questions of efficiency and 2 uniformity will turn.’” In re uCast LLC, No. C23-1258, 2023 WL 6131084, at *2
3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2023) (quoting One Longhorn Land I, L.P. v. Presley, 529 B.R. 4 755, 762 (C.D. Cal. 2015). Next, courts should “consider the efficient use of judicial 5 resources, delay and costs to the parties, uniformity of bankruptcy administration, 6 the prevention of forum shopping, and other related factors.” Sec. Farms, 124 F.3d 7 at 1008. The Court discusses both factors below. 8 3.2 Whether the proceedings are core or non-core. 9 A non-core proceeding is an “action that do[es] not depend on bankruptcy 10 laws for [its] existence and that could proceed in another court.” Sec. Farms, 124 11 F.3d at 1008. 12 To begin, Kerrigan’s motion fails to identify what specifically she considers to 13 be the non-core issues in her case. The Court recognizes that Kerrigan is now 14 representing herself, but she still bears the burden of identifying particular issues 15 warranting withdrawal. See In re Tamalpais, 451 B.R. at 8. She fails to meet that 16 burden. 17 In her motion, she seeks to withdraw the reference as to (1) a motion for 18 sanctions filed in her underlying bankruptcy proceedings “to the extent it implicates 19 non-bankruptcy issues”; and (2) “matters intertwined with [her] Objection to Proof 20 of Claim 3-1 [sic] and any related claims.” Dkt. No. 1-1 at 19. The broad language 21 used to indicate the source of her requests—e.g., “to the extent it implicates,” 22 “matters intertwined,” and “any related claims”—lacks specificity and requires the 23 1 Court to guess at what Kerrigan means. Indeed, a movant seeking withdrawal must 2 identify specific proceedings, explain their location in the record, and demonstrate
3 why they fall outside the bankruptcy court’s core jurisdiction.2 Nevertheless, the 4 Court will try to decipher Kerrigan’s request to the best of its ability based on the 5 motion and the information readily available in the bankruptcy record. 6 The first issue that Kerrigan seeks to withdraw from the Bankruptcy Court’s 7 consideration is any “non-bankruptcy” implications raised in her motion for 8 sanctions. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 2. Kerrigan readily admits that her motion for sanctions
9 was brought under Bankruptcy Rule 9011 and 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). See Reply, In re: 10 Kim C. Kerrigan, No. 24-12041-CMA (Bankr. W.D. Wash. Aug. 5, 2025), Dkt. No. 11 118 at 2. Courts consider these types of disputes as core proceedings under § 12 157(b)(2)(A). See, e.g., In re Trevino, 615 B.R. 108, 127 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2020) 13 (proceeding involving a § 105(a) dispute was a core matter); In re Kilpatrick, No. 25- 14 30619, 2025 WL 3295748, at *15 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio Nov. 24, 2025) (“The 15 consideration of imposing sanctions under Bankruptcy Rule 9011(c) for filings made
16 with this Court is certainly within this Court’s core jurisdiction.”). She does not 17
18 2 For example, Kerrigan does not appear to have brought “RESPA/consumer-law issues” claims, but rather argues that the reference should be withdrawn should she 19 choose to do so. Dkt. No. 1-1 at 20. Specifically, she does not write that she has chosen to bring those claims, but argues that a jury trial is necessary if she chooses 20 to prosecute those claims. Id. Similarly, her Motion for Sanctions describes conduct in the underlying litigation as “implicat[ing] numerous violations of federal and 21 state law,” including theft, the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, but does not appear to 22 have actually brought those claims in the underlying proceeding. See Motion for Sanctions, In re: Kim C. Kerrigan, No. 24-12041-CMA (Bankr. W.D. Wash. July 11, 23 2025), Dkt. No. 97 at 20-21. 1 appear to seek substantive relief outside the bankruptcy laws and rules, see, e.g., 2 supra at 5 n.2, and the relief she does seek arises under the Bankruptcy laws and
3 rules, see Motion for Sanctions at 38–39. Accordingly, the Court interprets 4 Kerrigan’s motion for sanctions and the issues contained in it as core proceedings 5 within the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction to issue rulings and judgment. 6 The Court turns next to the issues “intertwined” with Kerrigan’s Objection to 7 Proof of Claim 3-1. It is not in dispute that claim objections are considered core 8 proceedings. “Examples of core proceedings include objections to claims.” Loomis
9 Elec., Inc. v. Lucerne Prods., Inc., 225 B.R. 381, 386 (N.D. Ohio 1998); see also 28 10 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) (listing “allowance or disallowance of claims against the estate 11 or exemptions from property of the estate,” as core proceedings). And as discussed 12 above, the Court cannot discern what, if any, issues Kerrigan claims are 13 “intertwined” with her objection.3 That said, if these issues are truly “inextricably 14 linked” to the claim objection, this would support them being considered core 15 proceedings. See In re Brown, No. 22-40997, 2023 WL 11956376, at *3 (Bankr. W.D.
16 Wash. Apr. 5, 2023), report and recommendation adopted in relevant part, sub nom. 17 Brown v. Newman Du Wors LLP, No. 3:23-CV-5222, 2023 WL 3791793 (W.D. Wash. 18 June 2, 2023). Without more, the Court finds that Kerrigan’s Objection to Claim 3-1 19 and its “intertwined” matters are core proceedings. 20 21
22 3 Kerrigan’s motion references “Proof of Claim 3-1,” but the record reflects that her objection was filed against Proof of Claim 2-1. See Dkt. Nos. 72, 79.The Court notes 23 that it cannot find any “Objection to Proof of Claim 3-1” in the bankruptcy record. 1 3.3 Consideration of other factors. Having determined that the matters at issue are core proceedings, the Court 2 next considers “the efficient use of judicial resources, delay and costs to the parties, 3 uniformity of bankruptcy administration, the prevention of forum shopping, and 4 other related factors.” Sec. Farms, 124 F.3d at 1008 (citing In re Orion Pictures 5 Corp., 4 F.3d 1095, 1101 (2d Cir. 1993)). Kerrigan argues that withdrawing the 6 reference will lead to a uniform and efficient resolution to the disputes at hand. 7 Dkt. No. 1-1 at 20. She raises no other bases for withdrawal of the reference. The 8 Court disagrees with Kerrigan’s efficiency argument. This case has been before the 9 Bankruptcy Court since August 2024; Judge Alston is familiar with the underlying 10 facts and legal issues. Keeping these core matters with the Bankruptcy Court 11 ensures the most efficient use of judicial resources given Judge Alston’s familiarity 12 and expertise with the matter and parties. 13 4. CONCLUSION 14 Finding that Kerrigan has not met her burden to show why the reference 15 should be withdrawn as to her Motion for Sanctions and Objection to Claim 3-1, the 16 Court DENIES the motion. 17
18 Dated 21st day of January, 2026. 19 A 20 Jamal N. Whitehead 21 United States District Judge 22 23