Barclay v. Eder et al

Filing 11

ORDER Reconsidering and Denying Defendants Remar's and Frager's Motions to Withdraw the Reference (ECF Nos. 1 , 6 ). Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 6/23/16.(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