In re Debtor Cachet Financial Services

Filing 23

MINUTES IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha: Case should have been closed on entry dated 4/15/24, at CM/ECF docket no. 22 (SEE ATTACHED ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'MOTION TO WITHDRAW REFERENCE) (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (lc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -REOPENING/CLOSING
2:22-cv-08671-FLA
Bankr. Case No. 2:20-bk-10654-VZ
Pro. Case No. 2:21-ap-01187-VZ

Case No. Adv.

Date May 22, 2024

Title: In re Debtor Cachet Financial Services
Present: The Honorable FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA

N/A
Court Reporter / Recorder

Twyla Freeman
Deputy Clerk
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

N/A

N/A

Proceedings:

G In Court

G
✘ In Chambers

G Counsel Notified

G Case previously closed in error. Make JS-5.
✘ Case should have been closed on entry dated April 15, 2024
G

.

G Case settled but may be reopened if settlement is not consummated within
Make JS-6.

days.

✘ Other The case should should be closed at CM/ECF Docket No. 22. Please JS-6.
G

G Entered

.

Initials of Preparer

CV-74 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES -REOPENING/CLOSING

tf

Case 2:22-cv-08671-FLA Document 22 Filed 04/15/24 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #:335

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

IN RE CACHET FINANCIAL
SERVICES, A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION,
Debtor/Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18

Case No. 2:22-cv-08671-FLA
Bankr. Case No. 2:20-bk-10654-VZ
Adv. Pro. Case No. 2:21-ap-01187-VZ

v.
THE BANCORP BANK, A
DELAWARE-CHARTERED
BANKING INSTITUTION,

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO WITHDRAW
REFERENCE OF ADVERSARY
PROCEEDING TO BANKRUPTCY
COURT [DKT. 1]

Defendant.

19
20

RULING

21

Before the court is Defendants DD Care Management LLC (a New York

22

limited liability company, “DD Care NY”), DD Care Management LLC (a Florida

23

limited liability company, “DD Care Florida”), H3 Energy LLC, H3 Advisory LLC,

24

RKMA LLC, H3 Health Group LLC, H3 Food Group LLC, Access Management

25

LLC, KG Kosher LLC, Dialyze Manager LLC, H3 Capital LLC, ACG Equities LLC,

26

Henry Kauftheil (“Kauftheil”), and Joshua Rothenberg’s (“Rothenberg”) (collectively,

27

the “DD Care Defendants”) Motion to Withdraw Reference of Adversary Proceeding

28

to Bankruptcy Court (“Motion”). Dkt. 1 (“Mot.”); Dkt. 1-1 (“Mot. Br.”). On
1

Case 2:22-cv-08671-FLA Document 22 Filed 04/15/24 Page 2 of 11 Page ID #:336

1

December 29, 2022, Defendants Dime Community Bank (“Dime Bank”), John

2

Romano (“Romano”), and Yuriy Rubinov (“Rubinov”) (collectively, the “Dime Bank

3

Defendants”) filed a Joinder to the Motion. Dkt. 13 (“Joinder”). Debtor and Plaintiff

4

Cachet Financial Services (“Cachet” or “Plaintiff”) opposes the Motion. Dkt. 14

5

(“Opp’n”). On February 6, 2023, the court found this matter appropriate for

6

resolution without oral argument and vacated the hearing set for February 10, 2023.

7

Dkt. 16; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Local Rule 7-15.

8

For the reasons stated herein, the court DENIES the Motion in its entirety.1

9

BACKGROUND

10

I.

11

Factual Background2
Cachet was a national financial services company that processed Automated

12

Clearing House (“ACH”) transactions and provided related services for payroll

13

processing companies (commonly known as “Remarketers”). AP FAC ¶¶ 5, 40.

14

Defendant The Bancorp Bank (“Bancorp”) is a Delaware chartered commercial bank

15

and an Originating Depository Financial Institution (“ODFI”) that is permitted to

16

conduct ACH transactions pursuant to the National Automated Clearing House

17

Association (“NACHA”). Id. ¶ 6. On or around August 4, 2010, Cachet and Bancorp

18

entered into a Payroll Processing ODFI Agreement (the “ODFI Agreement”), whereby

19

Bancorp agreed to act as Cachet’s ODFI and facilitate Cachet’s ACH transactions for

20

Cachet’s Remarketer clients. Id. ¶ 45.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

For purposes of this Motion, the court cites filings in: (1) In re Debtor Cachet
Financial Services, Case No. 2:20-bk-10654-VZ (Bankr. C.D. Cal.) (the “Bankruptcy
Action”) as “BA Dkt. #”; (2) Cachet Financial Services v. The Bancorp Bank, et al.,
Case No. 2:21-ap-01187-VZ (Bankr. C.D. Cal.) (the “Adversary Proceeding”) as “AP
Dkt. #”; and (3) The Bancorp Bank v. Advanced Payroll Solutions, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:19-cv-02088-MN (D. Del.) (the “Interpleader Action”) as “IA Dkt. #.”

2

On May 31, 2022, Cachet filed a First Amended Complaint in the Adversary
Proceeding (“AP FAC”). AP Dkt. 11 (“AP FAC”). These factual allegations are
stated herein to provide background regarding the parties’ dispute only and do not
represent findings of fact by this court.
2

Case 2:22-cv-08671-FLA Document 22 Filed 04/15/24 Page 3 of 11 Page ID #:337

1

Cachet contends that, beginning in the summer and fall of 2019, several of its

2

clients engaged in fraudulent conduct that led ultimately to the parties’ dispute. See

3

id. ¶¶ 53–57, 67–102. According to Cachet, around August and September of 2019,

4

Cachet’s client, MyPayroll HR, and its principal, Michael Mann (“Mann”),

5

manipulated and/or altered Cachet’s batch file specifications—“the instructions that

6

dictate the direction, timing and flow of funds”—to steal more than $26 million from

7

Cachet’s accounts. Id. ¶¶ 53–56; BA Dkt. 511 (Am. Disclosure State.) at 5–6.

8

On October 18, 2019, Bancorp informed Cachet it had been contacted by Dime

9

Bank about possible suspicious activity involving the DD Care Defendants. AP FAC

10

¶ 96. Cachet alleges Rothenberg and/or Kauftheil caused batch files to be uploaded to

11

Cachet’s servers that caused the disbursement of approximately $21.5 million from

12

Cachet’s settlement account to accounts controlled by DD Care NY and DD Care

13

Florida (collectively, “DD Care”), without a corresponding credit to Cachet’s

14

accounts, resulting in a multi-million-dollar theft (the “DD Care Incident”). Id. ¶¶ 89–

15

94; BA Dkt. 511 at 7. According to Cachet, this was the result of an ongoing

16

fraudulent scheme perpetrated by Rothenberg and Kauftheil, assisted by Defendant

17

Dime Bank. AP FAC ¶¶ 62–103.

18

On October 23, 2019, Bancorp terminated the ODFI Agreement unilaterally and

19

froze the funds in Cachet’s accounts with Bancorp (the “Stake”). Id. ¶ 107. On

20

November 4, 2019, Bancorp filed the Interpleader Action in the United States District

21

Court for the District of Delaware (the “Delaware District Court”), requesting leave to

22

deposit the Stake with the court, an order discharging it from liability related to the

23

Stake, and the distribution of the funds to claimants through interpleader proceedings.

24

IA Dkt. 1. According to Cachet, it was unable to process ACH transactions for its

25

clients, forced to cease operations as an ACH processor, and became subject to

26

numerous lawsuits from Remarketers, employers, and employees as a result of

27

Bancorp’s actions. AP FAC ¶ 120; BA Dkt. 511 at 4.

28

///
3

Case 2:22-cv-08671-FLA Document 22 Filed 04/15/24 Page 4 of 11 Page ID #:338

1

II.

Procedural Background

2

On January 21, 2020, Cachet filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 11

3

bankruptcy relief in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of

4

California (the “Bankruptcy Court”). BA Dkt. 1; AP FAC ¶ 121. On January 24,

5

2020, the Delaware District Court stayed the Interpleader Action pending direction

6

from the Bankruptcy Court. IA Dkt. 247.

7

On September 14, 2021, Cachet commenced an adversary proceeding against

8

Bancorp in the Bankruptcy Court. AP Dkt. 1. On May 31, 2022, Cachet filed the

9

operative FAC in the Adversary Proceeding, asserting claims against twenty

10

individuals and entities, including Bancorp, the DD Care Defendants, and the Dime

11

Bank Defendants. See generally AP FAC. The FAC asserts nineteen claims in total,

12

including ten claims against the DD Care Defendants: (1) the first cause of action for

13

fraud by misrepresentation of material fact; (2) the second cause of action for fraud by

14

promise without intent to perform; (3) the third cause of action for conversion; (4) the

15

fourth cause of action for aiding and abetting fraud and conversion; (5) the fifth cause

16

of action for money had and received; (6) the sixth cause of action for unjust

17

enrichment; (7) the ninth cause of action for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (the

18

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, “RICO”); (8) the tenth cause of

19

action for RICO conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); (9) the seventeenth

20

cause of action for theft of money in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 496(a); and (10)

21

the nineteenth cause of action for avoidance and recovery of constructive fraudulent

22

transfers. Id. ¶¶ 127–94, 226–79, 356–64, 378–84. Cachet asserts three causes of

23

action against the Dime Bank Defendants: (1) the seventh cause of action for aiding

24

and abetting fraud and conversion; (2) the ninth cause of action for violation of 18

25

U.S.C. § 1962(c); and (3) the tenth cause of action for conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C.

26

§ 1962(d). Id. ¶¶ 195–213, 226–79.

27
28

The DD Care Defendants, joined by the Dime Bank Defendants, now move to
withdraw the reference of the Adversary Proceeding from the Bankruptcy Court.
4

Case 2:22-cv-08671-FLA Document 22 Filed 04/15/24 Page 5 of 11 Page ID #:339

1

Mot.; Joinder. Plaintiff opposes the Motion. Opp’n.

2
3

DISCUSSION
I.

Legal Standard

4

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) (“Section 157(a)”), district courts may refer

5

“any or all cases under title 11 and any or all proceedings arising under title 11 or

6

arising in or related to a case under title 11 … to the bankruptcy judges for the

7

district.” “Bankruptcy judges may hear and determine all cases under title 11 and all

8

core proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11, referred

9

under [28 U.S.C. § 157(a)], and may enter appropriate orders and judgments,” subject

10

to review by the district courts. Id. § 157(b)(1). “A bankruptcy judge may hear a

11

proceeding that is not a core proceeding but that is otherwise related to a case under

12

title 11.” Id. § 157(c)(1). “In such proceeding, the bankruptcy judge shall submit

13

proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, and any final

14

order or judgment shall be entered by the district judge after considering the

15

bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings and conclusions and after reviewing de novo

16

those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected.” Id.

17

“The district court may withdraw, in whole or in part, any case or proceeding

18

referred under [Section 157], on its own motion or on timely motion of any party, for

19

cause shown.” Id. § 157(d). “The district court shall, on timely motion of a party, so

20

withdraw a proceeding if the court determines that resolution of the proceeding

21

requires consideration of both title 11 and other laws of the United States regulating

22

organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce.” Id. Section 157(d)

23

“contains two distinct provisions: the first sentence allows permissive withdrawal,

24

while the second sentence requires mandatory withdrawal in certain situations.” One

25

Longhorn Land I, L.P. v. Presley, 529 B.R. 755, 759 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (quotation

26

marks omitted). “Under either provision, the ‘burden of persuasion is on the party

27

seeking withdrawal.’” Id. (quotation marks omitted).

28

///
5

Case 2:22-cv-08671-FLA Document 22 Filed 04/15/24 Page 6 of 11 Page ID #:340

1
2
3

II.

Analysis
The DD Care Defendants argue withdrawal is mandatory, or in the alternative,

that there is good cause to support permissive withdrawal. See generally Mot. Br.

4

A.

5

“The Ninth Circuit has not squarely addressed mandatory withdrawal, but other

Mandatory Withdrawal

6

circuits have held that ‘mandatory withdrawal is required only when non-title 11

7

issues require the interpretation, as opposed to mere application, of the non-title 11

8

statute, or when the court must undertake analysis of significant open and unresolved

9

issues regarding the non-title 11 law.’” In re Tamalpais Bancorp, 451 B.R. 6, 8 (N.D.

10

Cal. 2011) (brackets omitted) (quoting In re Vicars Ins. Agency, Inc., 96 F.3d 949, 954

11

(7th Cir. 1996)); see Sec. Farms v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffers, Warehousemen

12

& Helpers, 124 F.3d 999, 1008 & n. 4 (9th Cir. 1997) (“Section 157 … mandates

13

withdrawal in cases requiring material consideration of non-bankruptcy federal law.”

14

“By contrast, permissive withdrawal does not hinge on the presence of substantial and

15

material questions of federal law.”) (emphasis in original). Courts in this circuit have

16

largely adopted this approach. See, e.g., In re Tamalpais Bancorp, 451 B.R. at 8–9

17

(collecting cases); In re Ruby’s Diner, Inc., No. 8:21-cv-00845-SVW, 2021 WL

18

4572001, at *1 (C.D. Cal. June 2, 2021); One Longhorn, 529 B.R. at 760 (collecting

19

cases); In re Temecula Valley Bancorp, Inc., 523 B.R. 210, 214 (C.D. Cal. 2014).

20

Courts have also recognized “[t]he mandatory withdrawal provision should be

21

construed narrowly so as to avoid creating an ‘escape hatch’ by which bankruptcy

22

matters could easily be removed to the district court.’” In re Temecula Valley

23

Bancorp, Inc., 523 B.R. at 214 (quotation marks omitted). “[T]he weight of authority

24

places emphasis on what issues are to be addressed rather than what statutes are

25

involved.” In re Tamalpais Bancorp, 451 B.R. at 9 (emphasis in original).

26

The DD Care and Dime Bank Defendants argue withdrawal of the reference is

27

mandatory because all but one of the claims asserted against the DD Care Defendants

28

and all claims asserted against the Dime Bank Defendants are non-core proceedings,
6

Case 2:22-cv-08671-FLA Document 22 Filed 04/15/24 Page 7 of 11 Page ID #:341

1

which must ultimately be adjudicated by this court. Mot. Br. at 14–18; Joinder at 6–7.

2

Defendants do not cite any legal authority to support their contention that a

3

predominance of non-core issues mandates withdrawal. See Mot. Br. at 14–18;

4

Joinder at 6–7. That Section 157(c)(1) establishes a process whereby a bankruptcy

5

court may hear a non-core proceeding and submit proposed findings of fact and

6

conclusions of law to a district court, demonstrates that such predominance does not.

7

The court, therefore, finds mandatory withdrawal is not required here.

8

B.

9

A district court “may” withdraw reference of the Adversary Proceeding “for

Permissive Withdrawal

10

cause shown.” 28 U.S.C. § 157(d). “In determining whether cause exists, a district

11

court should consider the efficient use of judicial resources, delay and costs to the

12

parties, uniformity of bankruptcy administration, the prevention of forum shopping,

13

and other related factors.” Sec. Farms, 124 F.3d at 1008. In making this

14

determination, “a district court should first evaluate whether the claim is core or non-

15

core, since it is upon this issue that questions of efficiency and uniformity will turn.’”

16

One Longhorn, 529 B.R. at 762 (quotation marks omitted). “The Ninth Circuit has

17

suggested that permissive withdrawal is appropriate where ‘non-core issues

18

predominate.’” Id. at 763 (quoting Sec. Farms, 124 F.3d at 1008). However, “[t]he

19

determination of whether claims are core or non-core is not dispositive of a motion to

20

withdraw a reference.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Ultimately, “[i]t is within a

21

district court’s discretion to grant or deny a motion for permissive withdrawal of

22

reference; that decision will not be disturbed unless the court abuses its discretion.”

23

Id. (quotation marks omitted).

24

“Core proceedings include, but are not limited to … “(H) proceedings to

25

determine, avoid, or recover fraudulent conveyances[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2).

26

“[D]etermining the nature and extent of property of the estate is also a fundamental

27

function of a bankruptcy court … and fundamental to the administration of a

28

bankruptcy case.” In re Kincaid, 917 F.2d 1162, 1165 (9th Cir. 1990) (brackets
7

Case 2:22-cv-08671-FLA Document 22 Filed 04/15/24 Page 8 of 11 Page ID #:342

1

omitted). “Actions that do not depend on bankruptcy laws for their existence and that

2

could proceed in another court are considered ‘non-core.’” Sec. Farms, 124 F.3d at

3

1008. As stated, “the weight of authority places emphasis on what issues are to be

4

addressed rather than what statutes are involved.” In re Tamalpais Bancorp, 451 B.R.

5

at 9 (emphasis in original).

6

Cachet’s claims against the DD Care and Dime Bank Defendants concern: (1)

7

DD Care’s alleged conversion and theft of approximately $21.5 million from Cachet

8

through fraud; (2) the alleged fraudulent conveyance of such funds between the DD

9

Care Defendants; and (3) Dime Bank’s alleged assistance in this conversion, theft, and

10

fraud. See, e.g., AP FAC ¶¶ 67–103, 196–211. Although these claims were framed

11

and asserted as state law and RICO claims, they center on the issues of whether these

12

funds were transferred and/or conveyed fraudulently and are recoverable by the

13

bankruptcy estate—which are core issues that the Bankruptcy Court may decide. See

14

28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), (2)(H); see also Mot. Br. at 19 (recognizing “the single

15

remaining core claim—relies on exactly the same facts as the Non-Core Claims”).

16

Accordingly, the court finds non-core issues do not predominate over core issues in

17

the Adversary Proceeding.

18

Next, the DD Care and Dime Bank Defendants argue judicial efficiency weighs

19

in favor of immediate withdrawal because “[the] Adversary Proceeding is at its

20

earliest stage and the Bankruptcy Court is no more familiar with the facts and legal

21

issues than is the District Court.” Mot. Br. at 18. These Defendants further note that

22

the Bankruptcy Court cannot decide all of Plaintiff’s claims and is authorized only to

23

offer findings of fact and conclusions of law for this court to review de novo. Id. at

24

18–19. These Defendants additionally argue withdrawal is appropriate because they

25

have demanded a jury trial which must proceed in this court absent the consent of the

26

parties, which they refuse to provide. Id. at 20–21.

27
28

Cachet responds that judicial efficiency favors denying withdrawal, as the crux
of the Adversary Proceeding involves a core issue which the Bankruptcy Court is
8

Case 2:22-cv-08671-FLA Document 22 Filed 04/15/24 Page 9 of 11 Page ID #:343

1

well-positioned to manage, given its familiarity with the bankruptcy and issues at

2

hand. Opp’n at 13. According to Cachet, having this court hear pretrial matters

3

would thwart judicial efficiency, given the Bankruptcy Court’s familiarity and

4

expertise in handling Cachet’s bankruptcy, and may also disrupt the resolution of that

5

bankruptcy. Id. Cachet further argues Defendants’ request for a jury trial does not

6

constitute good cause for permissive withdrawal of the reference, as “a bankruptcy

7

court’s pre-trial management, which includes discovery, motions, and pretrial

8

conferences, does not in any way diminish a party’s right to a jury trial.” Opp’n at 14

9

(citing In re Healthcentral.com, 504 F.3d 775, 787 (9th Cir. 2007)). Cachet also

10

contends this court’s heavy caseload, limited resources, and need to prioritize other

11

matters further tips the efficiency balance against withdrawal. Id. The court agrees

12

with Cachet.

13

“In this Circuit, bankruptcy courts are not divested of pre-trial jurisdiction over

14

matters which they ultimately may be unable to decide,” and are “permitted to retain

15

jurisdiction over … action[s] for pre-trial matters.” In re Cedar Funding, Inc., 419

16

B.R. 807, 819 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2009) (citing In re Healthcentral.com, 504 F.3d at

17

787). As the Ninth Circuit noted, “requiring that an action be immediately transferred

18

to district court simply because of a jury trial right would run counter to our

19

bankruptcy system,” as Congress has empowered the bankruptcy courts to hear title

20

11 actions and enter relevant orders. In re Healthcentral.com, 504 F.3d at 787 (citing

21

28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1)) (emphasis in original).3 “[T]his system promotes judicial

22

economy and efficiency by making use of the bankruptcy court’s unique knowledge of

23
24
25
26
27
28

3

On reply, the DD Care Defendants cite Salven v. Lyons, No. 1:06-ap-01114-AWI,
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98938, at *6 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2007), to argue courts
have found they must withdraw a reference where parties have not waived their right
to a jury trial, even if all other factors weigh in favor of leaving an action in
bankruptcy court. Reply at 6. The proposition cited conflicts directly with the Ninth
Circuit’s subsequent decision in In re Healthcentral.com, 504 F.3d at 787, and no
longer reflects valid law.
9

Case 2:22-cv-08671-FLA Document 22 Filed 04/15/24 Page 10 of 11 Page ID #:344

1

Title 11 and familiarity with the actions before them.” Id. “Only by allowing the

2

bankruptcy court to retain jurisdiction over the action until trial is actually ready do

3

we ensure that our bankruptcy system is carried out.” Id. at 788 (emphasis in

4

original).

5

A review of the docket for the Adversary Proceeding demonstrates that multiple

6

Defendants, including the DD Care and Dime Bank Defendants, have filed motions to

7

dismiss Cachet’s claims, which are pending before the Bankruptcy Court. AP Dkts.

8

45, 54, 63, 80–81, 108. Withdrawing reference to the Adversary Proceeding at this

9

time would result in further costs and delay resolving pretrial motions which could

10

narrow the issues at trial or “obviate the need for trial altogether.” See Hjelmeset v.

11

Hung, No. 5:17-cv-05697-BLF, 2018 WL 558917, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2018); see

12

also In re Solid Landings Behav. Health, Inc., No. 8:20-cv-01167-JGB, 2020 WL

13

5934304, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2020) (noting bankruptcy court’s rulings on pretrial

14

matters “[were] likely to narrow the issues, draw attention to the most important areas

15

of dispute, and provide the Court with valuable (but non-binding) guidance on issues

16

the Bankruptcy Court [was] most familiar with,” increasing the chances of resolving

17

the matter efficiently).

18

In short, the Bankruptcy Court is in a better position to handle pretrial matters

19

here because it has been presiding over Cachet’s bankruptcy since January 2020, and

20

the Adversary Proceeding since September 2021, and is more familiar with the facts

21

and issues than this court. See In re Canter, 299 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2002)

22

(finding district court’s withdrawal of reference “was an inefficient allocation of

23

judicial resources, especially because the bankruptcy court was more familiar with the

24

facts and issues of the case….”). Similarly, the uniformity of bankruptcy

25

administration favors denying withdrawal, as the Bankruptcy Action has not yet

26

concluded and a potential recovery by Cachet and the resolution of its claims may

27

have a significant impact on the administration of the bankruptcy. There are no

28

concerns regarding forum shopping at issue here, and that factor is not relevant to the
10

Case 2:22-cv-08671-FLA Document 22 Filed 04/15/24 Page 11 of 11 Page ID #:345

1

court’s analysis.

2

In sum, the court finds that non-core issues do not predominate over core issues

3

in the Adversary Proceeding, and considerations of judicial efficiency, delay, costs to

4

the parties, and the uniformity of bankruptcy administration weigh against withdrawal.

5

The court, therefore, DENIES the DD Care and Dime Bank Defendants’ request for

6

permissive withdrawal.

7
8

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES the Motion in its entirety.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

Dated: April 15, 2024

13
14
15

______________________________
FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11