Forrester et al v. MidFirst Bank
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - This case is before the Court on MidFirst Banks amended motion to withdraw the general order of reference pertaining to an adversary proceeding that the Forresters filed against MidFirst in bankruptcy court. (Doc. 4 ). The Court grants MidFirsts motion to withdraw the general order of reference with respect to the Forresters adversary proceeding because MidFirst has shown good cause for doing so. Also pending before the Court is the parties joint motion to consoli date. (Doc. [9)]. The parties motion to consolidate does not offer a reason for a deviation from this Courts practice. (Doc. 9 ). Therefore, the Court denies without prejudice the parties joint motion to consolidate the related adversarial proceedings before Judge Burke. Judge Burke should decide whether the parties can show good cause for an exception to the Courts practice.Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 2/8/2019. (KEK)
2019 Feb-08 AM 09:34
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
GUY V. FORRESTER, SR., and }
KIMBERLY M. FORRESTER,
Case No.: 2:18-mc-01392-MHH
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on MidFirst Bank’s amended motion to
withdraw the general order of reference pertaining to an adversary proceeding that
the Forresters filed against MidFirst in bankruptcy court. (Doc. 4).
On August 16, 2013, plaintiffs Guy and Kimberly Forrester filed a Chapter
13 bankruptcy petition. (Doc. 4, ¶ 1; Doc. 6, ¶ 6). The Forresters included in their
Schedule D a secured mortgage debt and identified MidFirst Bank as a secured
creditor. (Doc. 4, ¶ 1; Doc. 6, ¶ 2). While the bankruptcy proceedings were
pending, on at least three occasions, MidFirst mailed a “Bankruptcy Message” to
the Forresters. (Doc. 6, ¶ 3; Doc. 6-1; Doc. 6-2; Doc. 6-3). The document states:
Our records show that you are a debtor in bankruptcy. We are sending this
statement to you for informational and compliance purposes only. It is not an
attempt to collect debt against you.
If your bankruptcy plan requires you to send your regular monthly mortgage
payments to the Trustee, you should pay the Trustee instead of us. Please contact
your attorney or the Trustee if you have questions.
If you want to stop receiving statements, write to us.
[PLEASE FORMAT AND PROOF AGAINST DOCS] (Doc. 6-1, p. 1; Doc.
6-2, p. 1; Doc. 6-3, p. 1).
In response, the Forresters filed an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy
court. (Doc. 6, ¶ 4). The Forresters contend that MidFirst’s mailings constitute
demands for payment that violate the automatic bankruptcy stay under 11 U.S.C. §
362(a)(3). (Doc. 6, ¶ 3). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), MidFirst asks the Court
to withdraw the reference and exercise jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding.
District courts possess “original and exclusive jurisdiction” of cases under
Title 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. 28 U.S.C. § 1334. A district court may refer
those cases to a bankruptcy court. 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) (“Each district court may
provide that any or all cases under title 11 and any or all proceedings arising under
title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11 shall be referred to the
bankruptcy judges for the district.”). This Court has issued a general order of
reference for bankruptcy matters. Pursuant to § 157 (d), the 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).
The Court must “on timely motion of a party, so withdraw a proceeding if the court
determines that resolution of the proceeding requires consideration of both title 11
and other laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting
interstate commerce.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(d).
The Court grants MidFirst’s motion to withdraw the general order of
reference with respect to the Forresters’ adversary proceeding because MidFirst
has shown good cause for doing so. There are multiple adversary proceedings
pending in this district against MidFirst, and those proceedings will require
interpretation of regulations that the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau
recently enacted. The Forresters acknowledge that MidFirst’s affirmative defense
concerning the regulations presents a question of first impression that “requires the
material consideration of non-bankruptcy law.” (Doc. 6, p. 5). Because the issues
in the adversarial proceeding require the material consideration of non-bankruptcy
law and because a decision by the bankruptcy court on a question of first
impression likely would generate an appeal to this Court, withdrawal of the
reference will promote efficient use of the parties’ and the Court’s resources.
Dionne v. Simmons (In re Simmons), 200 F.3d 738, 742 (11th Cir. 2000).
Also pending before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to consolidate.
(Doc. 9). Pursuant to Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties
ask the Court to consolidate this matter with other related matters pending in this
district. As a matter of settled practice, when parties ask to consolidate related
cases in this district, the cases typically are consolidated by and before the judge
presiding over the first-filed case. The practice prevents judge shopping. The
Forresters’ case, Case No.: 18-CV-1392, is the first-filed case among the cases that
the parties seek to consolidate, but the parties have asked that their cases be joined
in Case No. 5:18-CV-01398-LCB. The parties’ motion to consolidate does not
offer a reason for a deviation from this Court’s practice. (Doc. 9). Therefore, the
Court denies without prejudice the parties’ joint motion to consolidate the related
adversarial proceedings before Judge Burke. Judge Burke should decide whether
the parties can show good cause for an exception to the Court’s practice.
The Court asks the Clerk to please term Docs. 1, 4, and 9.
DONE and ORDERED this February 8, 2019.
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?