Loomis v. Hunter, Humphrey & Yavitz PLC et al

Filing 12

ORDER that the Motion for Status Hearing (Doc. 5 ), and the Motion toStrike (Doc. 8 ) are denied. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 7/22/2014.(ALS)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Joseph Charles Loomis,
Debtor,

10
11
12
13

Joseph Charles Loomis,
Appellant,
vs.

14
15
16
17

Hunter, Humphrey & Yavitz PLC, et
al.,
Appellees.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-14-01295-PHX-SPL
No. 2:10-bk-01885-MCW
No. 2:12-ap-00177-GBN
ORDER

18

Before the Court is Appellees Hunter, Humphrey & Yavitz, PLC, and Candess J.

19

Hunter, Isabel M. Humphrey, and Randall S. Yavitz’s Motion for Status Hearing (Doc.

20

5), and Appellant’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 8).

21

On January 26, 2010, Appellant filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 11 relief in

22

the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona (“Bankruptcy Court”),

23

Case No. 2:10-bk-01885-MCW. Appellee Hunter, Humphrey & Yavitz, PLC filed a

24

proof of claim on March 22, 2010, for approximately $95,000 in legal fees incurred while

25

representing Appellant in litigation before the United States District Court for the Eastern

26

District of Virginia. On January 24, 2014, Appellant filed a complaint and objection to

27

the proof of claim in the Bankruptcy Court, Case No. 2:12-ap-00177-GBN, commencing

28

adversarial proceedings against Appellees Hunter, Humphrey & Yavitz, PLC, and

1

Candess J. Hunter, Isabel M. Humphrey, and Randall S. Yavitz. Appellant asserted

2

claims of professional negligence, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.

3

On March 16, 2012, Appellees moved to withdraw the reference from Bankruptcy

4

Court to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, arguing that under

5

Stern v. Marshall, the Bankruptcy Court lacked final adjudicatory authority over the

6

adversarial proceeding. 564 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 2594, 2620 (2011) (holding bankruptcy

7

courts lack authority to “enter a final judgment on a state law counterclaim that is not

8

resolved in the process of ruling on a creditor’s proof of claim.”). On July 27, 2012, the

9

District Court denied the request finding that,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Because the Adversary Proceeding involves private rights that
will not be fully resolved by adjudication of the proof of
claim, we conclude that the bankruptcy court does not have
authority to enter final judgment over the counterclaim.
Nevertheless, we are not persuaded that withdrawal of the
reference is appropriate at this stage. Stern does not prohibit a
bankruptcy court from issuing proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law on claims that ultimately must be decided
by an Article III judge. Stern, 131 S. Ct. at 2604. Judicial
economy is best served by allowing the bankruptcy judge,
who is familiar with this case as well as the Virginia Action,
to oversee pretrial matters, initially adjudicate dispositive
motions, and issue a report and recommendation prior to
withdrawal. Accordingly, we decline to withdraw the
reference at this time.
(Loomis v. Hunter, Humphrey & Yavitz PLC, CV-12-00586-PHX-FJM, Doc. 12 at 3.)

20

At the conclusion of the adversarial proceeding before the Bankruptcy Court,

21

Appellees moved for summary judgment, and on May 20, 2014, judgment was entered in

22

their favor. (Doc. 11-2 at 1-2.) The proof of claim was also “deemed allowed in its

23

entirety, and [to] be paid consistent with, and pursuant to, the terms of the Plan of

24

Reorganization and the Court’s June 12, 2012 Order confirming the modified plan.” (Id.)

25

Plaintiff filed the instant Notice of Appeal on June 10, 2014. (Doc. 1.)

26

“If a matter is core, the statute empowers the bankruptcy judge to enter final

27

judgment on the claim, subject to appellate review by the district court.” Executive

28

Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, 573 U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 2165, 2172 (2014). See
2

1

also 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b), 158; Rule 8013, Fed. R. Bankr. P. On appeal, a bankruptcy

2

court’s “findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard, and

3

conclusions of law, de novo.” In re Lazar, 83 F.3d 306, 308 (9th Cir. 1996). “If a matter

4

is non-core, and the parties have not consented to final adjudication by the bankruptcy

5

court, the bankruptcy judge must propose findings of fact and conclusions of law. Then,

6

the district court must review the proceeding de novo and enter final judgment.” Arkison,

7

134 S.Ct. at 2172. See also 28 U.S.C. § 157(c). If a matter involves Stern claims, it

8

proceeds in the same manner as a non-core matter. Arkison, 134 S.Ct. at 2167.

9

Here, Appellees request that an initial status conference be held to resolve whether

10

the Bankruptcy Court erred in entering judgment rather than issuing a report and

11

recommendation. The Court finds that resolution of this dispute is premature at this

12

juncture. The issue of whether the adversarial proceeding adjudicated Stern claims and

13

what standard of review should be accorded to the Bankruptcy Court’s opinion should be

14

addressed by the parties in their briefing on the merits. If the Court determines “that the

15

Bankruptcy Court’s entry of judgment was invalid,” the Court will conduct a “de novo

16

review and [enter] its own valid final judgment” to cure such error. Arkison, 134 S.Ct. at

17

2175. Likewise, if the Court determines that the Bankruptcy Court’s entry of judgment

18

was valid, it will be subject to appellate review. The record of the Bankruptcy Court’s

19

opinion is amply developed for either construction. Consequently, the parties’ briefs shall

20

sufficiently address the adversarial claims at issue.

21
22
23
24
25

The time for briefing will be set forth by a scheduling order to issue in this action
following the filing of the certificate of readiness. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Status Hearing (Doc. 5), and the Motion to
Strike (Doc. 8) are denied.
Dated this 22nd day of July, 2014.

26
27

Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge

28
3