Wiggins v. Housley et al

Filing 14

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO BANKRUPTCY JUDGE FOR FURTHER FINDINGS. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 3/5/2013. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
DAWN C. WIGGINS,
No. C 12-05430 WHA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
BARBARA HOUSELY; DPPM, Inc.,
d/b/a/ ZEPHYR REAL ESTATE,

ORDER REMANDING
TO BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
FOR FURTHER FINDINGS

Defendants.

15

/

16
17

Bankruptcy courts may hear proceedings related to bankruptcy, “core proceedings,” as

18

well as proceedings that are otherwise related to a core proceeding, “non-core proceedings.”

19

28 U.S.C. 157(c). In non-core proceedings, the bankruptcy judge:
shall submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to
the district court, and any final order or judgment shall be entered
by the district judge after considering the bankruptcy judge’s
proposed findings and conclusions and after reviewing de novo
those matters to which any party has timely and specifically
objected.

20
21
22
23
24

Id. 157(c)(1).
In this action, plaintiff brought claims against defendants under the Bankruptcy Code

25

(Dkt. No. 2-3). The bankruptcy judge found that the claim against defendant Barbara Housely

26

was a core proceeding and proceeded to enter judgment against her (id. at 3–6). Defendant

27

DPPM, Inc., d/b/a Zephyr Real Estate did not concede that the claim against it was a core

28

proceeding (id. at 6). Additionally, the bankruptcy judge only found Zephyr liable under state

1

law and not under the Bankruptcy Code (ibid.). Accordingly, under 28 U.S.C. 157(c)(1), the

2

bankruptcy judge could not enter final judgment against Zephyr and instead only made proposed

3

findings of fact and conclusions of law (Dkt. No. 2). The bankruptcy judge then transferred the

4

proceeding to this district court.

5

Neither party filed timely objections to the bankruptcy judge’s findings under 28 U.S.C.

bankruptcy judge’s findings left silent — namely, (1) whether Housely and Zephyr were found

8

liable on a joint and several basis; (2) whether Zephyr owed plaintiff attorney fees and costs; and

9

(3) the amounts of any such fees and costs (Dkt. Nos. 8, 11). These disputed issues do not

10

appear to have been raised in the bankruptcy proceeding, and the bankruptcy judge had no

11
For the Northern District of California

157(c)(1). Rather, in briefs to the district court, the parties disputed three points that the

7

United States District Court

6

opportunity to make findings and conclusions on these three points.

12

Because the bankruptcy proceeding had the facts at hand this order REMANDS the action

13

to the bankruptcy court for further findings of fact and conclusions of law on these three issues.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: March 5, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2