Barclay v. Eder et al
Filing
14
ORDER Reconsidering and Denying Defendants Remar's and Frager's Motions to Withdraw the Reference (ECF Nos. 2 , 8 ). Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 6/23/16.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
In Re:
Case Nos.:
3:15-cv-02681-GPC-NLS
3:16-cv-00139-GPC-NLS
TAC FINANCIAL, INC.
13
Debtor.
ORDER RECONSIDERING AND
DENYING DEFENDANTS REMAR’S
AND FRAGER’S MOTIONS TO
WITHDRAW THE REFERNCE
14
15
16
17
CHRISTOPHER R. BARCLAY,
TRUSTEE,
3:15-cv-02681 [ECF Nos. 2, 8]
Plaintiff,
18
19
v.
20
3:16-cv-00139 [ECF Nos. 1, 6]
ROY H. EDER; REMAR
INVESTMENTS, L.P.; MICHAEL
RAYMOND FRAGER; FRASER
SISSON ASSOCIATES; CENTAURUS
FINANCIAL, INC.; RELIASTAR LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1
through 20,
21
22
23
24
25
Defendants.
26
27
28
1
3:15-cv-02681-GPC-NLS, 3:16-cv-00139-GPC-NLS
1
Defendants Remar Investments, L.P. (“Remar”) and Michael Frager and FSA
2
Integrated LLC [erroneously sued as Fraser Sisson Associates] (collectively “Frager” or
3
“Frager Defendants”) filed separate motions to withdraw the reference. Defendants Remar
4
and Frager sought to withdraw the reference to the bankruptcy court with respect to an
5
adversary proceeding commenced by Plaintiff Christopher R. Barclay, as Chapter 7 Trustee
6
for TAC Financial, Inc. (the “Trustee”) against Remar and others for claims arising out of
7
the allegedly fraudulent conveyance of a life insurance policy from TAC Financial, Inc.
8
(the “Debtor”) to Defendant Roy H. Eder and subsequent transferees, including Remar.
9
Any party wishing to oppose the motion had until February 19, 2016 with respect to
10
Remar’s motion and February 26, 2016 with respect to Frager’s motion to respond. On
11
February 26, 2016, Trustee filed a statement of non–opposition to both motions. On June
12
20, 2016, the Court granted Defendants’ motions to partially withdraw the reference with
13
respect to the Trustee’s claims against the moving Defendants. (See Case No. 15–cv–
14
02681, ECF No. 8; Case No. 16–cv–0139, ECF No. 6.) The Court was thereafter advised
15
that the Trustee would be filing a joint stipulation to withdraw the entire adversary
16
proceeding.
17
On June 22, 2016, the Trustee submitted a status report summarizing the procedural
18
status of the adversary proceeding. (Case No. 15–cv–02681, ECF No. 10.) On June 23,
19
2016, the Court held a status conference and inquired of the Trustee’s and moving
20
Defendants’ positions on the benefits of withdrawing the reference at this stage of the
21
adversary proceeding before the bankruptcy court. In view of the Parties’ respective
22
positions and the matters pending before the Court, the Court RECONSIDERS its order
23
granting Defendants Remar’s and Frager’s motions to partially withdraw the reference and
24
DENIES Defendants’ motions without prejudice. Judicial efficiency and uniformity will
25
be promoted by allowing the bankruptcy court, which is already familiar with the adversary
26
proceeding and has expertise in bankruptcy–related matters, to manage the proceedings
27
until the case becomes ready for trial or it otherwise becomes necessary for the district
28
court to enter final judgment on report and recommendation by the bankruptcy court.
2
3:15-cv-02681-GPC-NLS, 3:16-cv-00139-GPC-NLS
1
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that it is more judicially expeditious for the
2
bankruptcy court to oversee the adversary proceeding in this matter until it the case is ready
3
to proceed to jury trial or the district court is otherwise called upon to review the bankruptcy
4
court’s decisions relating to non–core or Stern claims.
5
RECONSIDERS its June 20, 2016 Order and DENIES Defendants Remar’s and Frager’s
6
motions to withdraw the reference without prejudice.
7
8
The Court therefore
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 23, 2016
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
3:15-cv-02681-GPC-NLS, 3:16-cv-00139-GPC-NLS
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?