In Re Maria Scaccianoce

Filing 13

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO WITHDRAW REFERENCE 1 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: The court finds that Defendant has the right to a jury trial on the adversary proceeding and that therefore the bankruptcy court cannot issue a fi nal determination on the matter. However, the bankruptcy court has statutory authority to enter proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in the matter, which then would be subject to denovo review and final judgment in the district court. In re Heller Ehrman, LLP, 464 B.R. 56-57 (N.D. Cal. 2011). The reference shall be withdrawn as follows: The bankruptcy court shall address all pretrial matters. If and when the case proceeds to trial, it shall proceed before this district court. (lc). Modified on 5/8/2013 .(lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

IN RE MARIA SCACCIANOCE,
Debtor
MARIA SCACCIANOCE,

13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
PATT MARION KAYE,

16
17
18

Defendant.
___________________________

) Case No. CV 13-00454 DDP
)
) ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
) DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
) WITHDRAW REFERENCE
)
) [Dkt. No. 1]
)
) USBC Central District of California at
)
) Los Angeles, 2:12-BK-32482-NB
2:12-ap-02690-NB
)
)

Presently before the court is Defendant Patt Marion Kaye’s

19

Motion to Withdraw the Reference as to the Adversary Proceeding.

20

Having considered the parties’ submissions and heard oral argument,

21

the court adopts the following order.

22

I. Background

23

Plaintiff Maria Scaccianoce was married to Frank Scaccianoce

24

(“Frank”), who died on March 31, 2003.

25

claimed to be Frank’s adopted son.

(Compl. ¶ 7.)

(Id. ¶ 8.)

On or about March

26
27
28

Defendant

cc: US Bankruptcy Court; US Trustee’s Office

1

4, 2002, Frank created a holographic will naming Plaintiff as the

2

beneficiary.

3

purportedly executed a trust naming Plaintiff and Defendant as both

4

trustees and beneficiaries.

5

Plaintiff and Defendant negotiated an agreement whereby Frank’s

6

estate property would be transferred to a general partnership (the

7

“Partnership”) with Plaintiff and Defendant as partners, giving

8

Defendant an interest in the property of Frank’s estate.

9

12.)

(Id. ¶ 9.)

On or about January 13, 2003, Frank

(Id. ¶ 10.)

Upon Frank’s death,

(Id. ¶

Plaintiff entered into such a partnership because Defendant

10

claimed to be Frank’s adopted son and Plaintiff believed him.

11

(Id.)

12

Plaintiff and Defendant had disputes concerning their rights

13

in the Partnership and their claims in the estate.

14

settle those disputes, on December 7, 2005, Plaintiff and Defendant

15

entered into a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, whereby

16

each agreed to an equal distribution of all Frank’s property and

17

property interests owned or held by him at the time of his death.

18

(Id. ¶ 14.)

19

transferring interests in two properties that had been removed from

20

the original Settlement to the Partnership and divided equally

21

between them.

22

an agreement whereby the administrator of the estate could sell

23

certain interests in real property which were not released or

24

distributed from the estate in order to pay estate taxes.

25

20.)

26

(Id. ¶ 13.)

To

On July 19, 2007, they entered into an Addendum

(Id. ¶ 19.)

On December 30, 2008, they entered into

They agreed to divide those interests equally.

(Id. ¶

(Id.)

At some point in 2011, Plaintiff asked Defendant to prove that

27

he was Frank’s adopted son, but he did not provide any proof.

28

(Compl. ¶ 22.)

From around 2005 to 2012, Plaintiff made payments
2

1

to Defendant through Radford Management, Inc., the manager of the

2

properties in question, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement

3

Agreement.

4

(Id. ¶ 23.)

Plaintiff filed her bankruptcy case on June 28, 2012, as a

5

chapter 13 case, and it was converted to a chapter 11 case on

6

August 15, 2012.

7

proceeding against Defendant in December 2012.

8

statement demanding a jury trial and indicating that he did not

9

consent to the bankruptcy court conducting a jury trial and

(Opp. at 3.)

Plaintiff commenced an adversary
Defendant filed a

10

entering a judgment in the adversary proceeding. (Mot. at 3.)

11

January 22, 2013, Defendant filed this Motion to Withdraw

12

Reference. On February 7, 2013, a default was entered by the

13

bankruptcy court against Defendant, who filed a Motion to Set Aside

14

Default on March 5, 2012.

15

and set aside the default on March 26, 2013.

16

II. Legal Standard

17

On

The bankruptcy court granted that Motion

“Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), the district court refers to

18

the bankruptcy court for this district all cases under title 11 and

19

all proceedings under title 11 or arising in or related to a case

20

under title 11.”

21

the Central District of California.

22

withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding referred

23

under this section, on its own motion or on timely motion of any

24

party, for cause shown.”

L. R. 5011-1(a) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of
“The district court may

28 U.S.C. § 157(d).

25

“A valid right to a Seventh Amendment jury trial in the

26

district court does not mean the bankruptcy court must instantly

27

give up jurisdiction and that the action must be transferred to the

28

district court. Instead . . . the bankruptcy court may retain
3

1

jurisdiction over the action for pre-trial matters.”

2

In re

Healthcentral.com, 504 F.3d 775, 788 (9th Cir. 2007).

3
4
5

III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth on the record, the court finds that

6

Defendant has the right to a jury trial on the adversary proceeding

7

and that therefore the bankruptcy court cannot issue a final

8

determination on the matter.

9

statutory authority to enter proposed findings of fact and

However, “the bankruptcy court has

10

conclusions of law in the matter, which then would be subject to de

11

novo review and final judgment in the district court.”

12

Heller Ehrman, LLP, 464 B.R. 56-57 (N.D. Cal. 2011).

13

shall be withdrawn as follows:

14

all pretrial matters.

15

shall proceed before this district court.

In re
The reference

The bankruptcy court shall address

If and when the case proceeds to trial, it

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20

Dated: May 8, 2013
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4